Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation Appellant's Appendix Volume I

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 
No. 73-1039

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant, 

- vs -
SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX 
(Volume I pages la-3l3a

HILL, JONES & FARRINGTON 
208 East 34th Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31402

KENNETH L. JOHNSON
Suite 1500, American Building 
Baltimore, Maryland

JACK GREENBERG 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
MORRIS J. BALLER

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiff“Appellant



I N D E X

Docket Sheet Entries...............................
Order of the District Court filed October 6, 1972
Complaint...........................................
Motion to Dismiss Complaint.......................
Interrogatories to Defendant......................
Motion to Extend Time to Answer Interrogatories 

With Court's Orders Thereupon..............
Answers to Interrogatories......................
Objections to Interrogatories...................
Motion to Compel Answers, With Notice and

Supporting Memorandum.......................
Opinion and Order of Court on Motion, filed

December 9, 1968.............................
Answer to Complaint..............................

'
Motion to Alter or Amend the Order of De member 9, 

1968 or in the Alternative to Certif{ Question 
for Interlocutory Appeal, With Suppc rting 
Memorandum..........................

Order Extending Time....................
Amendment to Previous Answer to Interrogatories, 
Motion Seeking Protective Order, and Order Thereon., 
Supplemental Order of Court, filed January 14, 1968,
Order of Court filed February 17, 1969, With Notices 

to Class Members..................................
Letters Showing Notice to Class......................
Request for Exclusion From Class Action.............

Page

la 
7a 
2.8 a 
34a 
35a

41a
46a
58a

61a

67a
74a

77a
90a
91a
106a
108a

113a 
120a 
12 5a



Page

Notices to Take Depositions............................. 126a
Motion to Inspect, With Notice..........................  132a
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, With 

First Amended Complaint and Supporting
Memorandum............................................  134a

Defendant's Defenses to First Amended Complaint........ 147a
Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge the Class, With

Supporting Memorandum................................  151a
Transcript of Trial Held May 29-30, 1972...............  161a
Consent to Viewing By Court..............................  624a
Supplemental Statements of Attorney's Time By

Plaintiff's Counsel..................................  625a
Notice of Appeal..........................................  628a
Motion for Extension of Time to Transmit Record,

and Order Thereupon..................................  630a
Clerk's Certificate....................................... 633a
Exhibits Admitted Into Evidence at Trial

Plaintiff' s Exhibits [

Ex. 1 - Affidavit of Bobby L. Hill.................  634a
Ex. 2 - Affidavit of Robert Belton.................... 642a
Ex. 3 - Affidavit of Donald L. Hollowell, with

Attachments................    649a
Ex. 4 - Litigation Expenses and Costs..............  653a
Ex. 5 - Table, Number of Employees in Segregated

Job Classifications, etc. July, 1965............ 655a
Ex. 6 - Table - Number of Employees in Segregated

Job Classifications, etc. - July 2, 1968........ 656a
Ex. 7 - Table, Number of Employees in Segregated

Job Classifications, etc. - June 30, 1971......  657a



I
Page

Ex. 8 - Table, Number of Employees in All Job
Classifications, etx. - July 2, 1965.............  658a

Ex. 9 - Table, Number of Employees in All Job
Classifications, etc. - July 2, 1968.............  659a

Ex. 10 - Table, Number of Employees in All Job
Classifications, etc. - June 30, 1971.............. 660a

Ex. 11 - Itemization of Services by Kenneth L.
Johnson............................................  661a

Ex. 12 - itemization of Services by Fletcher
Farrington.........................................  662a

Ex. 13 - Mrmorandum Regarding Payment of Fees........  666a

Defendant1s Exhibits
Ex. 1 - Employee Records, Adam Baxter................  669a
Ex. 2 - Employee Records, Johnnie Baxter.............  674a
Ex. 3 - Employee Records, William Steele, Jr........  679a
Ex. 4 - Employee Records, Frank King.................  685a
Ex. 5 - Employee Records, George B. Buckins.........  687a
Ex. 6 - Employee Records, Summer Wallace.............  689a
Ex.. 7 - Employee Records, James Jacobs...............  696a
Ex. 8 - Employee Records, Frank Williams, Jr........  701a
Ex. 9 - Employee Records, Joseph C. Brinson.......... 710a
Ex.' 10 - Employee Records, Willie McMillan, Jr.....  714a
Ex. 11 - Employee Records, Dennis F. Holliday.*......  717a
Ex. 12 - Employee Records, Euless Hodges.............  722a
Ex. 13 - Employee Records, James Jones #2............ 734a
Ex. 14 - Employee Records, Jefferson Davis........... 741a
Ex. 15 - Employee Records, Ted Stokes................  745a



Pacfe
Ex. 16 - Employee Records, Inman P. Morgan, Jr......... 749a
Ex. 17 - Employee Records, Eddie Lee Smith.............  752a
Ex. 18 - Employee Records, Washington, D ...............  760a
Ex. 19 - Employee Records, Ned Singleton, Jr........... 766a
Ex. 20 - Employee Records, Lucious Height..............  772a
Ex. 21 - Memorandum To All Supervisors.................  775a

\Ex. 22 - List of Meetings...............................  776a
Ex. 23 - Plant Stations, etc............................ 777a
Ex. 24 - Employee Handbook..............................  782a
Ex. 33 - Affirmative Action Program.................... 794a
Ex. 34 - Table, Job Classification and Number of

Employees, 1965-1971.................................  823a
Ex. 35 - Table and Lists, Promotions, 1965-1972....... 830a
Ex. 36 - Table and Lists, Summary of Hiring

Statistics, 1966-1971...............................  878a
Ex. 37 - Area Wage Survey...............................  900a
Ex. 38 - Table, Comparison of Wage Rates.............  912a
Ex.- 39 - EEOC Decision..................................  913a
Ex. 40 - Certificate of Authenticity, With

Attachments..........................................  917a
Ex. 41 - List, Education Programs, 1963-1972........... 922a
Ex. 42 -.Lists of Job Classifications and Employees... 928a



_______j
RECORD ON APPEAL

i,, >/ u- > /

o. - .r  _

X .  CIVIL ! □  CRIMINAL R  BANKRUPTCY

I- ! N LRB  [ j  MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE

TAX COURT 

□  OTHER

~'7Yi -  a O d V
C R O S S  A P F E A L  N O .

i-lpr.UIT 5 APPEAL FROM _SQUl.bSXJl_______DlSTR>CT 0F_GeOl'Gia----
DATE nnr.KPTFn 1-8-73_______ D.C. OOCKET NO.QA 23Q4-----:---
-Ec pAin S25_____ DATE 1-8-73______________  DATE NOTICE OF APPEAL FILcD

. a t ___Savannah
j u d g e ________Alai h i q _

_10-.im.2_
TRKR

ADAM BAXTER,

versus

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.

A P P E A R  AS.  C E I
r l ’.E  j - D A 'E attorneys for appellani

I a p p e a r a n c e
,  P I L E D -  D A  T E

Fie teller Farrington, 20S East 34th_St., Savannah. Ga. 31401
Bobbv L. H i l l ________________-do- __________________
Kenneth L. .Johr.qon. Suite 1500 American Bldg.. Baltimore, Maryland,
Jack Greenberg. 10 Columbus Circle. New Yotk. N .Y . 10019

attorneys  for a p p e l l e e
II

-John F. Simpgnr. 197 ahprrnrn St, Savannah ■ Ga. 31401 -1
John L. Sann. 1900 Peachtree Center Bldt:i , Atlanta. Ga. 300Q3_

• .
-------------------------------  F t t T D

J A N  -A 1Q7^

RECORD SENT TO :)LVO k . . DATE

NUMBER OF VOLUMES ^
L. E i

EXS. r i  ENV. 1 BOX “  PKG. R  R O LL *

Cl IPPLEM EN T AL
1 SECOND SU PPLEM EN TAL

TRANSMITTED rO R  SCR ctiN i.’lu i

SCREENING CLASS III _

j SCREENING CLASS _ " l V LOCATION OF HEARING

SUNW.ARY CLASS II P A N E L HEARING PAN EL

Unite J State \ C ou it of A ppea ls  for the F ifth  C ir c u it  -  Docket, Form \

/, L 1



I
DATE

1968
FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

AMOUNT 
REPORTED IN 
EMOLUMENT 

RETURNS

Mar.  8 F i l i n q  O r i q i n a l  P e t i t i o n  f o r  I n i u n c t i o n  and f o r  Back Wages.
J .  S. 5 c a r d  p r epa red

Mar .  8 P r e p a r i n g  copy  and I s s u i n g  Summons f o r  S e r v i c e .  D e l i v e r e d  t o  U.S ,  M a r s h a l ,

March 13 f  11 I n£ Ma r sha l  ' s  Re tu rn  on S e r v i c e  upon Mr. W a l t e r  C. S c o t t .  V i c e - P r e s  1 den ,  .

Savannah Sugar R e f i n i n g  Corp.
March 28 F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  Mo t i on  t o  d i s m i s s  Com p l a i n t  w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e

June 2** F i l i n q  P l a i n t i f f ' s  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  propounded t o  the De f en da n t ,
June 28 F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  Mo t i on  t o  e xt end t ime  t o  answer I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ,  A f f i d a s

and O rder  o f  Cou r t  e x t e n d i n g  t ime  t o  September 9 ,  1968; and a l s o  O rder  o f o u r t

s e t t i n g  h e a r l n q  In B ru ns w i c k .  Ga . .  on September 9,  1968. a t  11:00 A M w i t h
c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  t hereon .

Aug.  21 F i l i n g  and e n t e r i n g  O rde r  o f  Cour t  upon consen t  o f  both p a r t i e s  the t ime

f o r  an sw e r i n g  the I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  in  the above s t y l e d  ca se  Is e xt ended  un t i  i
September  9 ,  1968.

S e p t .  9 F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  Answer s to I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  s e r ved  on the c o r p o r a t i o n

by P l a i n t i f f  on June 2b,  19 6 8 , w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .

Sep t .  9 F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  O b j e c t i o n s  to 1n t e r r o q a t o r l e s  s e r ved on the C o r o o r a t i c n
by P l a i n t i f f  on the 2^th.  day o f  J une ,  1968, w i t h  proposed n o t i c e  o f  hear ng
w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .  Copy handed t o Law C l e r k ,

Oct .  7 F i l i n g  Mo t i on  o f  P l a i n t i f f  t o  Compel Answers t o  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  s e r ved  on

de f end an t  on June 23, 1968; N o t i c e  o f  Hea r i nq  on Oc tober  23. 1968 and

Memorandum in suppo r t  o f  Mo t i on  t o  Compel Answers t o I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  w i t h

c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .

DEC. 9 ... F i l i n q  and e n t e r i n q  C o u r t ' s  ODion and Orde r  s u s t a i n i n q  P l a i n t i f f ' s  Mo t i on to
compel  answers  t o  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .

Dec. 23 F i l i n g  ° 1 a i n t i f f * s  M o t i o n  to or Amend t he  Order o f  0ece~ber 9, 19&8

or  i n  t he  A l t e r n a t i v e  t o  C e r t i f y  O ue s t i on  f o r  Purpose  6 f  an I n t e r  1 o c u t o r y
App ea l .  L opy o f  M o t i o n  d e l i v e r e d  t o Law C l e r k ,

Dec. 23 f i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  Answer t o  the Comp l a i n t .
•Dec. 23 F i l i n g  Order  o f  Cou r t  e x t e nd i n g  t ime f o r  De fendant  t o  Answ i r  P l a i n t i f f ' s

i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t h rough J a nua r y  10, 1969. " o t i c e  of f i l i n g  and copy o f  Ordc r

. 1969 m a i l e d  t o  Mr .  Bobby L. H i l l  and Mr.  R.M. H i t c h .

Jan.  9 r i l i n q  D e f e n d a n t ' s  Mo t i o n  f o r  P r o t e c t i v e  Order and Order  G r a n t i n o  Mot i  n
Jan.  9 i 1 i ng D e f e n d r o t ' s  Amended Answer t o  Int  er r oga t  or i c s .

J an .  lb F i l i n g  Supp lementa l  O rder  o f  Cour t  deny ing  P l a i n t i f f ' s  Mo t i on  to a l t e r  o r

Smqnd t he r equ i remen t  o f  n o t i c e  to members o f  the c l a s s  as r e o u i r p d  i n  Ru le

2 3 ( b ) ( 3 ) .  X c t
N o t i c e  o f  i l i n g  and copy  se r ved  on a l l  c ounse l  t h i s  da t e .

1 - 0
*4 J --------------------------------------------------FPI—  I K - I - M 7 - J 0 M - I



►I

i
‘ \ *

—

C/A 230*4 „ ~  *  ~ BAXTER VS SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORP.
C IV IL  D O C K E T  C o n t in u e d

DATE

1969
FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

CLERK'S FEES AMOUNT 
REPORTED IN 
EMOLUMENT 

RETURNSPLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

Feb.  17 F i l i n g  and e n t e r i n g  O r de r  o f  Cour t  o r d e r i n g  t h a t  N o t i c e
o f  C l a s s  A c t i o n  be g i v e n  pu r su an t  t o Ru l e  23c(2)  R .R . C .P

w i t h  e x h i b i t s  a t t a c h e d .  Copy o f  s a i d  o r d e r  and n o t i c e  c f

... . . . . . .  1
f i l i n g  s e r ved  on a l l  c ounse l  f o r  p a r t i e s .

Feb.  25 F i l i n g  l e t t e r  add r e s s ed  t o t h i s  o f f i c e  f rom H r .  R. H. H t ch

- -  l a t t a c h i n g  c o p i e s  o f  l e t t e r s  wh i ch  he m a i l e d  ou t  pur suan to t

_ L r eq ues t  o f  Judqq Lawrence ,  s end i nq w i t h  t he l e t t e r s  Not ce o f

__ L pendency  o f  a c t i o n  and r eq ues t  f o r  e x c l u s i o n  f rom the C as s  a :t  i 0 W
■ 1 L e t t e r s  m a i l e d  t o  t he f o l l o w i n g  pe r s ons :

Mr .  W i l l i e  M c M i l l a n .  J r .  Mr .  Ned S i n g l e t o n ,  J r .
35 Bu r ke  Avenue 1A08 McKensey P l a ce

S a v a n n a  Ga. 30*408 Savannah,  Ge o rg i a  230*4

Mr .  L u c i o u s  He i g h t

6 3 6  West  *40th. S t r e e t

' Savannah,  Ga.  31*+01

Mr .  Ed d i e  Lee Smi th

1628 N ew cas t l e  S t r e e t

Savannah,  G e o r g i a  31**0I

. Feb. 27 F i l i n q  r eq ues t  f o r  e x c l u s i o n  f rom c l a s s  a c t i o n  f i l e d >y
Ned S i n g l e t o n ,  J r . ,  In a c co rd anc e  w i t h  the  terms o f  t ' eNo t i ce c f  Penc e n c '

c l a s s  a c t i o n  da t ed  F e b r ua r y  1*4, 1969.

Mar .  19 F i l i n q  Second O r i q i n a l  o f  Defendant ' s  N o t i c e  t o  Take the Depos i  t i  t n o f

Adam B ax t e r  a t  10:90 A.M.  on March 26, 19 6 9 .
June 17 F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  N o t i c e  t o  t ake d e p o s i t i o n  upon o r a l exami t a t i Dn

o f  Robe r t  Fenn G i l e s  and w i l l  be taken i n  the o f f i c e s  0 : Bobby L. H i l l ,
P l a i n t i f f ' s  A t t o r n e y  a t  10:30 A.  M. On the 3 th  day o f J u l y , 1969 and w i 1 1

c o n t i n u e  f rom day t o  day u n t i l  c omp l e t ed ,  w i t h  c e r t i f c a t e o f  s e r v  i ce •

June 23 F i l i n q  Copy o f  P l a i n t i f f ' s  N o t i c e  tp take d e p o s i t i o n  upon o n 1
e x a m in a t i on  o f  L .  E. Ber cegeay  on J u l y  8,  1969 a t  10:30 A.  M. i n the 0 f i c e
o f  Bobby L .  H i l l ,  A t t o r n e y  f o r  P l a i n t i f f ,  the o r a l  exair i na t i t n w 1 1

c o n t i n u e  f rom day t o day u n t i l  c omp l e t ed .  The purpose i s ft r ci 01t/>1/1O ami na t i on ,
pec.  17

o f  the De f e nda n t s ,  Robe r t  F. G i l e s ,  W a l t e r  C. S c o t t  ant Me rc 1 i th Dav i s
01. J a nua r y  23.  1970 a t  1:30 P.M.  in  the o f f i c e  o f  Bobbt L.  H 11 i t  *458
West Grand S t r e e t ,  Savannah,  Geo rq i a .  A t t o r n e y  f o r  P l a i D_t I f f f o r the
purpose  o f  c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n . . i

1). <’. no B - . . . -------

ou
„ ............,  | | ■_  _ -  im  | — . — J

&
t;



-*f -

DATE
1969

PILINGS—PROCEEDINGS
CLERK'S FEES AMO- • r RCPOfi i '. IN EMOLUV.I N T RETURNSPLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

Dec.  17 F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  M o t i o n  to i n s p e c t  w i t h  n o t i c e  o f

M o t i o n ,  movincj the Cou r t  to moke a v a i l a b l e  the premise s o f he

Savannah Suga r  P . e f i n i nq  Corp .  , Carden C i t y ,  Ga . ,  f o r - the p i rpo ,e
o f  p e r m i t t i n g  P l a i n t i f f  and h i s  A t t o r n e y  to r e v i ew  anc i nsp :ct >c twee ) th B

hour s  o f  9 : 00  A .M.  and 12:00 P .  M. on the 23 day o f  Ja nuary 19 r0 .  C >py to Law Cl e r k .

1970

p r .  29 F i l i n g  s ea l ed  d e p o s i t i o n  o f  L.  E. Ber cegeay .

1971

:ept.  9 P re * T r i a 1  c on f e r e nc e  h e l d  t h i s  da t e  t o  c o n f i n e  i s s u e s  f<>r T r i al -
P l i i n t i f f  moved v e r b a l l y  t o  amend co mp l a i n t  and Cour t  c<>nsent ed s j b j e c t

t o  o b j e c t i o n s  -  P l a i n t i f f  r eq ues t ed  November, 1971* T r i .
1 *

Sept .  27 F i l i n g  Mot i on  f o r  Leave t o  F i l e  Amended Co mp l a i n t  and Mamoran dum in Sup por

o f  Mo t i on  f o r  Leave t o  F i l e  Amended Com p l a i n t ,  w i t h  pro nosed Amer ded Cc mp 1, l i n t

a t t a c h e d ,  f i l e d  by P l a i n t i f f .

Oc t .  12 F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  Def enses  t o P l a i n t i f f ' s  F i r s t  Amend

Co m p la i n t .
1972.

Jan. 17 P r e - T r i a l  c o n f e r e n c e  h e l d  t h i s  d a t e  a t  Savannah,  Ga. ,  wi th Ju Ige knthon ' A.

A l a im o  p r e s i d i n g .

p r .  2 5 Con fe r ence  h e l d  t h i s  da t e by Judqe A l a im o .  S e t t l e m e n t  Di?cys$e j . P r t - T r i a J
f o r  May 17th,  1972 a t  10:00 A.M* In the Grand Ju r y  Room n Sav ?qna
se t  f o r  May 1 5 t h ,  1972 a t  9 : 30  A . m . i n  the Grand J u r y  fio<vn In fl

p r .  26 N o t i c e  o f  P r e - T r i a l  and o f  the Non - Ju r y  T r i a l  m a i l e d  t o  j .ounse
o enlarg j cla pa r i J e s—thtiledlay 17 Pre-trial conference held this date. Motion t

by Counsel for Plaintiff. Arguments made to t T T E T with jards
to the Motion to enlarge class by Counsel foF~aLX pa rties . Jourt
reserved ruling on motion. At pre-trial hear ing s tip ilatiDns and

agreements made before the Court and betwe sn Ccuns el as to
procedure for trial evidence, etc. Pre-trial memc wi LI be furnisheid
to foe Court by all parties. This will be furnishe d during or af te:
trial. Length of trial approximately no more than three I T T days
and may not last that long. All evidence to b e  c f fered at baginn.L n g

of the trial. Settlement of case impossible. S O  £tated by~Co unsel
for the parties. Plaintiff to file brief in supf ort of his Motio i

to enlarge time by 5/18/72
May 17 Filing Plaintiff's Motion to enlarge the Cla ss a£ S t ated abcve .
Mav 29 Case called bv Court for non-iurv trial this date vith Coun sel ’for

all parties present; announced ready for tria 1, Witne sses //as swori

Ha-

\

' / o



I

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304--BAXTER VS SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORP. PAGE 5

D C. 1I0A j u t . CItU D o c t t t  C o n tin u a tio n

1972
O

D May 3

The taking of testimony for the Plaintiff began and also“ tFe Introduct­
ion of evidence for the Plaintiff. Trial of case continued throught tjhe 
morning until the hour of recess for lunch at 12:40 P.M. -Court 
resumed at 2:00 P. M. with continuing of taking of testimony and 
introducing evidence of Plaintiff. Plaintiff rested at 4:oo P.M.
At 4:10 P. M. Defendant made motions that case be dismissed. Court 
withheld ruling on this motion until all evidence has been present­
ed. Trial of case continued with the taking of testimony and the 
introduction of evidence forthe Defendant. Court recessed at 5:40 
P.M.
9:00 A. M.-Trial of case continued with the taking of testimony 

and introduction of evidence for the defendant, trial continued 
until hour of recess for lunch at 1:00 P. M. Trial resumed at 
2:15 P.M. with the taking of testimony and introduction of evidence 
for the Defendant and continued until 4:30 P.M. at which time the 
Defendant rested. Rebuttal began at 4:30 P.M. and ended at 4:30 P.ljl. 
Final proposed finding of fact and conclusions of law and proposed 
judgment to be submitted by June 26, 1972. Responses to other side': 
brief to be submitted within one week after 6/26/72.

May 31

July 31

Aug. 23

o

Sept.6

o Oct. 6

Oct. 10

PRO CEED IN G S
Date Oi Judgmeo

alFiling Stipulation of parties to this action consenting to a persor 
viewing by the Court of the premises of the defendant's plant and 
administrative office and its operation without the presence of 
Counsel for either party and consenting and agreeing that Mr.
George Fawcett, an employee of the defendant, shall escort the 
Court through the premises.
Piling copy of Defendant's proposed findings of Fact and conclusiois 
of Law. (advised by Counsel that the original mailed to Judge 
Alaimo on Friday July 28th).
Filing Plaintiff's Post-Trial Brief in support of his proposed 
findings of fact, conclusions of Law and Decree and reply to 
Defendant’s Post-trial Memorandum; Plaintiff's Proposed Findings 
of fact and conlsusions of Law; and Plaintiff's proposed Decree witl 
certificate of service thereon. (the aforesaid pleadings marked 
filed and placed in folder in Brunswick and copy given tp Judge 
Alaimo.
Filing Defendant's Reply Reply Memorandum to certain allegations 
contained in the Plaintiff's Post-trial brief. Mailed to Judge 
Alaimo this date.
Filing Order entered by Judge Alaimo (final order closing case).

This Court to retain jurisdiction for two years. Injunction grantejl; 
Attorney Fees awarded Plaintiff with directive to Defendant.
J. S. 6 Card Prepared.

Entered the awarded Attorney fees in Judgment docket.
_ _ -i r: • 0  ri  b y  P l a i n t i f f  c o d v  m a i l e d  t<5 C o u r t  o f  

F i l i n g  N o t i c e  o f  A p p e a l  f i l e d  , c o p y  »■<» j - r

Appeals and Counsel for Defendant.

5

i (



PHOOKEDINO S l>»te Orel JudK'nriit
Oct. 13
Oct. 16

Oct. 20

Nov. 20

Nov. 20

1973 
Jan. 3

Jan. 3 

Jan. 4

Filing Plaintiff's Bill of Costs in the sum of $631.24.
Filing Transcript of testimony ofMr. Preston Blackwelder in the 
above case may 29 and 30, 1972, in the United States District Court 
Savannah, Georgia, before the Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo.
Taxing costs against the Defendant in accordance with the bill 
of costs filed October 13, 1972.
Filing Motion of Plaintiff for Extension of time to transmit Record 
to the Appellate Court because Court Reporter has not completed the 

transcript of the trial and requires additional time to prepare the 
record.
Filing Order of Court Extending time within which to transmit the 
record to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
extended toand including the 5th day of January, 1973.
[Copy of order mailed to the Clerk, U. S. Court of Appeals for the 
FifthCircuit and to Mr. John Simpson, Attorney for Defendant],
Copy also mailed to co-counsel forDefendant, Mr.John Lewis Sapp, 
Attorney, Atlanta, Ga.

Filing Transcript of trial in the above case taken before the 
Hon. Anthony A. Alaimo in the U. S. District Court on May 29th an 
30th, 1972, in Savannah, Georgia.

_ Filing Quarterly Report filed by Mr. John E. Simpson, Attorney 
for Savannah Sugar Refining Corp. as required by paragraph 7 of 
the Court's decree of October 6, 1972, with attachments.
Forwarding the Record on Appeal in Two Volumes to the United State 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

G

( A



1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH DIVISION

U. S. DISTRICT COURT ' 
Southern District of Gsu 

Filed In office
___________ ’1.

OCT 6 _ 1 9 7 2 -1 o__
V / 7 Ct' &

Deputy Clerk

ADAM BAXTER, *

Plaintiff * CIVIL ACTION
VS. * NO. 2304

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING *
CORPORATION,

fc
Defendant

O R D E R

Plaintiff brought this class action on March 8,
1968, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. He subsequently
filed an amendment to include allegations that the Civil
Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 also was violated.
The amended complaint charges that the defendant employer
has discriminated against the plaintiff and the class which
he seeks to represent with respect to compensation, terms,
conditions and privileges of employment, because of race.
Plaintiff's allegations are mainly directed against the
defendant's policies and practices in regard to promotion 

; / 
of-employees.

Prior to commencement of this action, plaintiff 
filed a charge of employment discrimination with the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission on January 12, 1966, in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act'*', alleging that

1 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 ; "(a) Whenever it is charged in writing
under oath by a person claiming to be aggrieved. . . that an
employer. . . has engaged in an unlawful employment practice 
. . . the Commission. . . shall make an investigation of such
charge. . . . (e) If within thirty days after a charge is
filed with the Commission. . . the Commission has been unable
to obtain voluntary compliance with this subchapter, the Com­
mission shall so notify the person aggrieved and a civil action 
may, within thirty days thereafter, be brought against the 
respondent named in the charge. . . . "

l o

■ V 0



the defendant had failed to promote plaintiff to the position 
of boiler room foreman or relief foreman because of his race. 
He now seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, an
award of back pay, attorneys' fees and costs of the action 
individually and for the class.

Defendant denied all the substantive allegations 
of the complaint.

The action was tried to the Court on May 29, 1972, 
following which the Court made a personal tour of defendant's 
entire operation, and this viewing supports the Court's find­
ings. The Court's findings and conclusions follow.

Rule 23(c)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. and this Court ruled on December 9, 
1968, Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Refining Corp., 46 F.R.D. 56,
58, that the action would proceed with the class being limited 
to the employees in the boiler room operation with respect 
to back pay awards or mandatory promotions. The Court's order 
further made it clear, 46 F.R.D. 56, 61, that plaintiff was 
entitled to seek declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent 
future plant-wide discriminatory practices by defendant and 
that discovery would be permitted pertinent to discriminatory 
practices in all departments of operation. This order limit­
ing the class was expressly made subject to alteration or 
amendment at a later date.

the class, which was heard on May 17, 197.2. At that time the 
Court advised counsel for both parties that the admission of 
evidence on trial of the case would not be limited to the 
class as previously described by this Court's order of December

THE CLASS ACTION

In limine, a hearing was held under the provisions of

The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to enlarge

- 2 -

V

V



9, 1968, and that the Court would allow evidence concerning 
plant-wide discrimination.

Before proceeding to a final decision, it is ap­
propriate at this point to re-define the class represented 
by plaintiff. This is militated by the evidence adduced 
on trial of the case and by decisions' rendered subsequently 
to this Court's order limiting the class.

"While it is true, as the lower court 
points out, that there are different 
factual questions with regard to different 
employees, it is also true that the 
'Damoclean threat of a racially discrimi­
natory policy hangs over the racial class 
[and] is a question of fact common to all 
members of the class.'" Johnson v. Georgia 
Highway Express, Inc., 417 F . 2d 1122, 1124 
(5 Cir. 1969) .
Note that a portion of the decision in the Johnson

case dealing with a claim for back pay contained no language 
either limiting or broadening the class with specific refer­
ence to this form of relief. While Rule 23(b)(2) contains 
a pointed reference to "injunctive relief or corresponding 
declaratory relief," it contains no language limiting it 
to those types of relief, and it does not support the pro­
position that no monetary relief may be ordered in a class 
action under Rule 23(b)(2). Robinson v. Lorillard Corp.,
444 F .2d 791 (4 Cir. 1971).

"We are . . .unable to perceive any
justification for treating such a suit 
as a class action for injunctive purposes, 
but not treat it so for purposes of other 
relief." Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,
416 F .2d 711, 720, (7 Cir. 1969).

-3- \
\



Although the Court does not make an award of back 
pay herein, the plaintiff will henceforth be deemed to repre­
sent Negro employees in all departments of operation in 
defendant's refinery with respect to all forms of relief 
afforded by the Act. Enlargement of the class at this 
time can be effected without notice to any members since 
this action was brought pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), under 
which such notice is not mandatory. Johnson v. City of 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 50 F.R.D. 295 (E.D. La. 1970), 
and Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Grounds, 292 F. Supp. 619,
(D. Kansas 1968) .

THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF

The defendant’s principal business is refining, 
distribution and sale of cane sugar. The refinery is located 
at Port Wentworth, Georgia, and defendant maintains executive 
offices in downtown Savannah. Defendant is an employer within 
the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) of the Act.

The plaintiff has been employed by the defendant 
at its refinery since June 27, 1955, having begun as a general 
laborer at $1.33 per hour. He is now employed at $3.51 per 
hour as a senior electrician's helper. He began work in de­
fendant s electric shop on July 1, 1957, where his duties 
consisted of cleaning electric motors, replacing light bulbs, 
assisting in the cutting of conduit pipe, and assisting elec­
tricians in the performance of their duties. On September 7, 
1959, the plaintiff started working as a relief helper in the 
defendant's boiler room, where he substitutes for regular • 
boiler.room helpers on weekends and holidays and when the 
regular employees are absent or on vacation. While working 
in the boiler room the plaintiff has been paid at his regular

-4-

1 * 0
V



rate as an electrician's helper as that rate is higher than 
the boiler room helper's rate. The plaintiff's duties as 
relief helper in the boiler room consist of opening and closing 
valves as directed by the,foreman, carrying boiler water 
samples to the plant laboratory for analysis, and performing 
housekeeping chores.

The boiler room supplies all the electrical energy 
and,steam used by defendant in operation of the refinery.
It is the^heart of the refinery and contains equipment ex­
ceeding a million dollars in value. The boiler room operates 
twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week and is manned on 
a three-shift basis, with two employees assigned to each 
shift, one foreman and one helper. Three employees are 
classified as boiler room foreman and three as boiler room 
helpers. In addition, there are one or more relief foremen 
and one or more relief helpers. The primary jobs of these 
relief employees are elsewhere in the refinery and they are 
used in the boiler room on a temporary basis.

The boiler room operator, or foreman, is required 
to read and monitor in excess of thirty dials and guages, 
which record critical information such as the steam pressure 
and water flow of the three high-pressure steam boilers, the 
chemical content of incoming boiler feed water and the sugar 
content of water coming to the boiler room from the refining 
process. Each hour, during his shift, he determines the 
consistency of incoming boiler feed water with a chemical 
analysis kit maintained in the boiler room. He is responsible 
for recording steam, water flow, gas and fuel oil measurements 
in a toiler room log, which is used by defendant's engineering 
department to determine operational efficiency and the necessity 
for any corrections. The boiler room foreman is responsible 

x -5-

II (k

VV

/■ i t



for operating the char revivifier, essential to the refining 
process, and the turbo generator which produces the plant's 
electricity. It is incumbent upon him to notify the appro­
priate personnel in the event of any malfunction or emergency. 
The boiler room foreman is also in charge of plant security 
on weekends and after 4:30 p.m. weekdays.

The personal viewing of the boiler room operation 
by the Court disclosed that it was a highly sophisticated 
and complicated operation.

The duties of boiler room foreman demand a con­
scientious person with a thorough knowledge of the complicated 
automated equipment of the boiler room and the ability to 
foresee necessary changes and adjustments which must be made 
in the equipment that controls the steam load and insures 
the safety of the three boilers. Vast experience has made 
it apparent that mechanical background and aptitude are 
necessary for operations and well-nigh indispensable to the 
integrity of the entire plant operation. The employees who 
have successfully performed as boiler room foremen or relief 
foremen have had mechanical backgrounds as either general 
mechanics or pipefitters, or have had previous experience in 
the operation of a boiler room. The performance of the 
helper's job does not give one sufficient training and ex­
perience to perform successfully as foremen. A six-month 
training period is normally necessary for the foreman's job, 
to train an individual who already possesses a mechanical 
background.

There have been two vacancies in the boiler room
*foreman's classification since the effective date of the Act. 

The first of these vacancies was filled on January 1, 1966, 
when Euless Hodges was promoted from the senior pipefitter's

- 6 -

U o

1

U..I



classification. Hodges, employed since October 11, 1954,
had been a relief boiler room foreman since November 29, 1954.
The second vacancy was filled on June 6, 1966, when Joseph C.
Brinson was promo'ted from the classification of packaging
department mechanic. Brinson was employed initially on
February 14, 1957, and began working as a relief foreman in
November, 1965. Two employees have been trained as relief
foremen in the boiler room since the effective date of the
Act. Dennis Holiday, a senior mechanic in the Company's

\general mechanics department, began training on April 28,
1967; and Frank Williams, a Black, who is a senior pipe­
fitter in the general mechanics department, begain training 
on July 13, 1968. These four men were significantly better 
qualified and possessed superior mechanical backgrounds than 
plaintiff for the job of foreman or relief foreman in the 
boiler room.

Eleven persons were employed in the defendant's 
electrical department at the time of this trial. Eight 
of the eleven were employed in classifications paying more 
than the classification in which plaintiff is employed.
Seven of these eight persons have worked in the Company's 
electric shop longer than plaintiff. Since the effective 
date of the Act, there have been no vacancies and therefore, 
no promotions in jobs in the electrical department paying 
more than that of plaintiff.

The plaintiff has been given written warnings on 
four occasions for failure to perform his work properly 
and for violation of plant rules. He has an unfavorable 
personnel record and what is considered a bad attitude 
toward his work, as evidenced by the testimony of numerous 
witnesses and his demeanor in the courtroom. He has been 
given the opportunity on three different occasions to

X



I \transfer into the boiler room as a regular helper, but 
has refused the transfer on each occasion. Moreover, 
plaintiff does not have a mechanical background as do all 
the four men promoted to the position of boiler room foreman 
or trained as relief foreman since the effective date of the 
Act. Each of those promoted had significantly better quali­
fications than plaintiff. The Court finds that the defendant 
has not discriminated against the individual plaintiff because 
of his race in failing to promote him to the position of 
boiler, roim foreman or relief foreman.

"Although Congress did not intend to 
freeze an entire generation of Negro 
employees into discriminatory patterns 
that existed before the Act, it certainly 
did not desire to melt job qualifications 
having no racially discriminatory ingre­
dient or controlling pre-Act antecedent."
United States v. Jacksonville Terminal Co.,
451 F .2d 418, (5 Cir. 1971). See Also
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 at 
430, 91 S.Ct. 849 at 853, and Cooper v.

' Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor, ____ F . 2d ____ ,
(No. 71-3186, 5 Cir. 1972).

THE ISSUE OF CLASS-VJIDE DISCRIMINATION

Baxter's failure to establish his claim for 
individual relief will not bar relief for the class he 
represents. Bowe v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 416 F .2d 711 •
at 7lj; Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 433 F .2d 
421, 428 (8 Cir. 1970). It is therefore necessary to consider 
evidence pertaining to plant-wide discrimination at defendant's

X
- 8 -

/%.

V
0



refinery.
On the effective date of the Act, the defendant 

employed 505 regular employees at its refinery and 319 of 
these, or 63.2 percent, were Black. At that time, the 
Company had fifty-four job classifications which contained 
more than one person. Three of these classifications were 
integrated, twenty-six were held by Whites only, and the 
remainder by Blacks only.

Since 1960, when it employed approximately seven 
hundred regular employees, the Company has experienced a 
gradual decline in employment which resulted from automation 
of the defendant's processes and the development and use of 
new types of machinery. The defendant's total employment 
of regular employees declined by 14 percent between July 2, 
1965, and June 30, 1971, as by then the regular employees 
numbered 433 at the refinery, of which 272, or 62.8 percent, 
were Black. By July 30, 1971, there were fifty-five job 
classifications containing more than one employee. At that 
time the integrated classifications had increased to thirteen 
and the number of classifications, including Whites only, had 
decreased to eighteen.

.. From January 1, 1966, through January 1, 1972, de­
fendant hired forty-nine new employees. Twenty—seven, or 
55 percent, of these were Black. During this period of time, 
the average rate of pay was approximately the same for new 
hires, whether White or Black. From 1965 through May 29,
1972, there were 170 employee promotions at the defendant's 
plant. Ninety-five, or 55 percent, of these promotions went 
to black employees. The defendant attempts to promote cur­
rent employees into higher level job classifications. However 
the Company's opportunities to promote employees have been 
limited by the fact that its employees serve an average span

-9-

/ £ <K

■

• r ■



of 17.4 years and the turnover rate is approximately two to 
four percent per year. This leads to a very stable work force. 
Moreover, total plant employment has declined 14 percent since 
July, 1965.

Sprague, issued a notice on June 29, 1965, to all the 
Company's supervisors announcing that it was the policy 
and intent of the Company to comply with the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000, and to give each applicant and employee the same 
consideration regardless of race, color, religion or 
national origin. On January 1, 1968, the defendant volun­
tarily adopted an Affirmative Action Program, which it has 
maintained continuously since that date. Under the Affirmative 
Action Program defendant has utilized written descriptions 
for the various job classifications. It has also held numerous 
training classes for the employees to equip them to qualify 
for more difficult and higher paid positions. Since adoption 
of the program, black employees have received 62 percent of all 
promotions in the plant. And while the number of white super­
visory employees has declined by one, the number of black 
supervisors has increased from one to eleven.

of segregated job classifications has been reduced by a 
significant extent through positive efforts by the defendant. 
The Court is convinced that the employer has willingly and 
conscientiously taken steps to eliminate pre-Act segregation 
practices.

relied heavily upon statistics. See United States v. 
Hayes,. 456 F.2d 112 (5 Cir. 1972). While black and white 
employees begin at the same rate of pay, Blacks ultimately

The defendant's executive vice-president, R. 0.

The foregoing indicates that the pre-Act pattern

In the presentation of his case, plaintiff has

- 10 -



fall behind the earning power of their white co-workers. 
Throughout the years from 1965 to 1971, the income gap 
between black and white employees at defendant's plant 
has widened. In 1965, the average wage for white employees 
was $105.86 per week, while Blacks averaged only $92.23 
per week. In 1968, white employees of the Company averaged 
earning $126.60 per week while Blacks averaged only $104.84.
In 1971, the defendant's white production employees earned 
an average weekly wage of $156.94 while Blacks earned only 
$134.13. Black employees in segregated job classifications 
in 1971 earned $27.05 less on the average than Whites working 
in all white jobs. In 1965, the gap was $20.20. A portion 
of the statistical data is attached as Appendices I, II, and 
III, indicating the representation of black employees at 
various levels of the wage scale at relevant times. These 
data reflect that while defendant has recently achieved more 
dispersal of black employees into the higher wage levels, 
nevertheless the relative position of all black employees 
in comparison with the earnings of white employees has not 
improved. It is obvious that of the 95 black employees pro­
moted from 1965 until the date of trial, only a few were 
promoted into formerly all-white or integrated job classifi- 
fications. The majority of these promotees remained in segre­
gated job classifications.

crimination against any specific individual to the Court's 
satisfaction. He called three of defendant's current employees 
as witnesses: his brother, Johnny Baxter, George Buckins and 
Summer Wallace. Each of these witnesses complained because a 
certain promotion had been granted to another Negro. None 
complained because a desired promotion was awarded to a white

On the other hand, plaintiff has not proved dis-

- 11-



employee. Another witness, Frank King, who had voluntarily 
terminated his employment, had complained to the personnel 
counsellor that Blacks were not being promoted to the job of 
checker in the white sugar warehouse. After his complaint, a 
number of Blacks were promoted into the Checkers' jobs.

■ the evidence discussed has appeared inconclusive, 
a clear answer may be found by looking at defendant's formal 
procedure for granting promotions. So far as appears from 
the evidence, defendant's job descriptions do not delineate 
qualifications; there is no system of posting notice of 
vacancies, and any information regarding job vacancies is 
disseminated through supervisory personnel. This naturally 
tends to channel and limit information regarding vacancies 
to those employees within segregated job classifications where 
such vacancies occur. One of the defendant's witnesses testi­
fied that employees become aware of all job vacancies by word 
of mouth within twenty-four hours. However, almost all pro­
motions are granted without request from employees. Thus, 
rumor is not the kind of effective notice needed to eliminate 
the consequences of pre-Act segregation practices.

The personnel manager testified that in granting 
promotions defendant considers the factors of qualifications 
and seniority and in each instance attempts to choose the 
employee best-qualified for the vacancy under consideration.
If two or more employees are similarly qualified, the one 
w-ith most seniority normally receives the promotion. Pro­
motions are determined by consultation among the personnel
manager, the plant superintendent and the employee's immediate

•
and past supervisor. There are no written instructions or

N '
guidelines for supervisors pertaining to qualifications 
necessary for promotions. Under this system of judging 
qualifications, it is apparent that the supervisors' sub­
jective evaluation of the employee's ability is an important

-12-

j



factor in his advancement and an individual supervisor could, 
if he were so inclined, exercise racial discrimination in his 
selection of candidates for promotion. Promotion procedures 
which depend largely upon the subjective recommendation of 
the employee's supervisor are a ready mechanism for discrimi­
nation which may be concealed from management. Rowe v. General 
Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 348 (5 Cir. 1972).

supra, this Court finds that the defendant's promotion 
procedures violate Title VII in the following particulars:

1. The supervisor's recommendation is the most 
important factor in the promotion process.

2. Supervisors are not furnished written
instructions specifying qualifications necessary for pro­
motion .

opportunities, nor are they notified of the qualifications 
necessary for promotion. >

5. There are no safeguards in the procedure 
designed to avert discriminatory practices.

The Act imposes upon employers an affirmative duty 
to devise and implement pertinent objective criteria for 
determining which employees available for promotion are 
qualified to fill particular vacancies. United States v. 
Terminal Co., 451 F.2d 418 at 453.

evidence establishes a positive effort to seek out and 
promote qualified personnel among its black employees, the 
finding of a violation of Title VII is bottomed on the

In accord with the decision in the Rowe case,

3. The standards referred to in the testimony 
(work experience, desire for improvement, leadership 
potential, etc.) are vague and subjective.

4. Employees are not notified of promotion

However, keeping in mind that the defendant's

-13-
\



following language of the Act: "It shall be an unlawful 
employment practice for an employer. . . to limit, segregate, 
or classify his employees in any way which would. . . tend 
to deprive any individual of employment opportunities. . . 
because of such individual's race. . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e -
2(a)(2). In the absence of satisfactory proof of discrimina­
tion within the class, the Court does not find that the 
employer's promotion practices have, in fact, deprived the
class within the prohibitions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e - 2(a)(1) _
only that such practices tend to deprive the class of employ­
ment opportunities within the statutory prohibitions of 42 U.S.C. 
§ 2000e - 2(a) (2) .

Allegations of plaintiff's petition charging other 
violations of Title VII are not supported by the evidence, 
which shows without conflict that restroom, locker and dining 
facilities at defendant's plant are used by all employees 
without regard to race.

Plaintiff's complaint mainly attacked defendant's 
system of promoting current employees. It did not aim 
specifically toward hiring practices, nor does the Court find 
from the evidence that there has been any racial discrimina- 
f-ioA t*y defendant in its system of hiring new employees •

THE ISSUE OF BACK PAY
The Court in its discretion will limit relief 

here to a decree prohibiting such future violations of the 
Act as have been pointed out above. It is deemed that two 
factors combine to make an award of back pay inappropriate. 
First, the defendant has acted in good faith and made a 
positive effort to eliminate pre-Act segregation prcctices. 
Cf. Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 433 F.2d 421 
(8 Cir. 1970) .

-14-

-20o

1 i 0



Second, the plaintiff has failed to adduce satisfactory 
proof that such relief is needed to make.the class whole. 
There has been no proof of a significant number of members 
of- the group possessing qualifications who have been damaged 
by discriminatory practices notwithstanding their qualifica­
tions for promotion. Concerning the burden of proof, see 
generally Dobbins v. Local 212, International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers, 292 F. Supp. 413, 445-446. "Congress 
granted broad discretion to the District Court to fashion 
remedies iVi Title VII cases as the equities of the particular 
case compel." LeBlanc v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.,

333 F. Supp. 602 (E.D. La. 1971).
Additionally, the Court was impressed with the 

evidence that defendant's, wage rates are higher than those 
of any other industry in the Savannah metropolitan area; 
its unbroken history of annual wage increases to all 
employees, without any discrimination; its policy, broken 
only during three depression years, of 15 percent annual 
bonus to all employees; its summer student employment program 
for employees' children, again without the slightest evidence 
of any discrimination; its policy of no layoffs when jobs 
were abolished by automation. In substance, the Court feels 
that the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant 
was a poor target for this type action.

under-Title VII should ordinarily recover attorneys' fees 
unless special circumstances, would render an award unjust

F . 2d (No. 71-3402, 5 Cir. 1972), aff'ing.

ATTORNEYS ' FEES AND COSTS

.One who succeeds in obtaining injunctive relief

-15-



i

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U.S. 400, 402; 88
S.Ct. 964, 966; Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791 
at 804. Cf. Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. {, Tel. Co., f .2
----- (No. 72-1075, 5 Cir. 1972) and Callahan v. Wallace,

------ F-2d _______ (No- 71-3309, 5 Cir. 1972); 6 Moore's
Federal Practice, pp. 1356-1357.

Plaintiff s attorneys have submitted evidence and 
affidavits to the Court concerning the time spent in the 
preparation and trial of the case. Based upon this evidence 
including that of experienced counsel for the defendant, 
and applying the guidelines set forth so concisely in Clark
— _American Marine Corp., 320 F. Supp. 709 (E.D. La. 1970),
I will make an award of Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars 
($12,500) as attorney's fees for the plaintiff, together 
with Six Hundred Forty-seven Dollars and Sixty-five Cents 
($647.65) expenses, in addition to otherwise allowable costs.

DECREE

The Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, its 
officers, agents, employees, servants and all persons in 
active concert or participation with them, are hereby per­
manently enjoined and restrained from discriminating against 
the Negro employees of the defendant Savannah Sugar Refining 
Corporation at its. refinery at Port Wentworth, Georgia, in 
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In particular, it is. ORDERED and DECREED that 
defendant shall take certain affirmative action as herein­
after set forth, within ninety (90) days, to implement de- • 
fendantVpolicy of equal employment opportunity at its 
refinery and to discharge defendant's obligations under law

-16-

1 + 6



. promotion of employees
not to discriminate on the basis of race or color in the

1. The defendant shall furnish supervisory
personnel at its Port Wentworth refinery written instructions 
delineating objective criteria and specific qualifications 
necessary for promotion or transfer of employees with respect 
to all job classifications in which vacancies occur.

2. The defendant shall post on bulletin boards in 
conspicuous places throughout all departments at its refinery 
notices of all job vacancies available for promotion or transfer 
of current employees. Said notices shall contain a specific 
job description for each vacancy, the rate of pay, and 
information with respect to the qualifications required
and how and where application can be made.

3. The defendant shall place on bulletin boards 
in conspicuous places in all departments throughout its 
refinery notices containing information of training programs 
designed to equip employees with necessary skills for ad­
vancement. Said notices shall remain posted a reasonable 
length of time, shall particularize the benefits to be 
derived from the training and the qualifications required
for entry into them, and shall specify how and where interested 
employees can make application to participate.

consist of a reasonable number of management personnel, to 
insure that no employees shall be denied review or considera­
tion for promotion or transfer at its refinery solely for the
reason that he is not supported by the recommendation of his

•
supervisor. Defendant shall continually keep posted in all 
departments at its refinery notices informing employees of 
the existence, availability and purpose of the review committee

4. The defendant shall establish a committee, to

-17-

j.)



5. The defendant shall continue its current 
practice of giving qualifications paramount consideration 
in promoting employees.

6. The defendant shall continue to provide 
training programs to increase the skills and qualifications 
of its labor force and enable the employees to qualify for 
advancement and job transfers.

7. To implement the retention of supervision of 
this action the defendant shall make quarterly reports to
the Court outlining its action in compliance with this decree. 
This report should include information concerning advancements 
and promotions, transfers, hirings, training programs and the 
job descriptions and qualifications referred to in paragraph 
three above.

JURISDICTION

The Court will retain jurisdiction of this cause 
for a period of two years. During such time, either party 
may by appropriate motion request modification of this order 
in light of new factual and legal developments.

It is so ordered, this („ ̂  day of
1972.

-18-

, I/



Number of Employees, in all Job Classifications, by 
Race and hourly rate, and average weekly earnings 
by Race, Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation,

July 2, 1965.

Number of Employees and Amount Earned

Hourly White Amount Earned Black Amount E
Rate Per Week Per We

3.66025 5 732.05
3.2795 20 2623.60
3.1845 6 764.28
3.1075 4 497.20
3.0225 1 121.90
2.92 45 5256.00 5 584.00
2.86 4 457.60 *

2.80 2 224.00
2.77 12 1329.60
2.745 2 219.60
2.72 2 217.60
2.68 . 6 643.20
2.64 1 105.60
2.637 3 316.44
2.61 \ 6 626.40
2.60 3 312.00
2.59 12 103.60 18 1864.80
2.583 1 103.32
2.54 21 2133.60
2.5195 10 1007.80
2.50 3 300.00 1 100.00
2.48 1 99.20 7 694.40
2.47 3 296.40 1 98.80
2.46 2 196.80
2.45 7 686.00 / 19 1862.00
2.44 1 97.60
2.43 26 2527.20
2.40 \  3 288.00
2.37 9 853.20
2.3675 1 94.70
2.35 3 282.00
2.34 1 93.60
2.33 1 93.20 28 2609.60
2.28 119 10,852.80
2.12 78 6614.40
1.62 2 129.60

Total 186 $19,690.39 319 $39,422.40

Average weekly income: White $105.86 Black $92.23

APPENDIX I



Number of Employees, in all Job Cl'as;sifications, by Race
and hourly rate, and average weekly earnings by Race,
Savannah Sugar 

*
Refining Corporation, July 2, 1968

Number of Emplovees and Amount Earned

Hourly White Amount Earned Black Amount Earner
Rate Per Week Per Week

4.0025 5 800.50
3.6245 ■ 19 2754.62
3.5295 6 847.08
3.4525 , 3 414.30 2 276.20
3-.4 5 \ 1 138.00
3.41 1 136.40
3.36 1 134.40
3.32 4 531.20 1 132.80
3.24 48 6220.80 3 388.80
3.18 4 508.80
3.16 1 126.40
3.14 2 251.20
3.10 4 496.00
3.00 3 360.00
2.99 7 837.20 5 598.00
2.95 5 590.00
2.9425 6 706.20
2.93 3 351.60
2.92 9 1051.20 2 233.60
2.90 3 348.00
2.893 1 115.72
2.89 5 578.00 20 2312.00
2.86 1 114.40
2.85 7 798.00
2.84 5 568.00
2.8295 8 905.44
2.81 1 112.40
2.80 3 336.00
2.76 2 22 0.80 20 2208.00
2.75 * 6 660.00
2.74 1 109.60
2.71 9 975.60
2.70 3 756.00
2.6675 1 106.70
2.63 2 210.40 60 6312.00
2.60 6 624.00
2.58 87 • 8978.40
2.41 77 7422.^0
1.90 2 152.00

X  N v

Totals 165 $20,888.96 314 $32,920.60

Average weekly income: W. ite $126.60 Black $104.84

APPENDIX II



I lNumber of Employees, in all Job Classifications, by 
Race and hourly rate, and average weekly earnings by 
Race, Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, June 30, 1971

vi

Number ,of Employees and Amount Earned
Hourly White Amount Earned Black Amount Eaj
Rate Per Week Per We<
4.81 7 1346.80
4.40 16 2816.00
4.30 5 860.00 1 172.00
4.23 5 846.00 1 169.20
4.22 1 168.80
4.09 163.60
4.08 . V  4 652.80 1 163.20
4.00 2 320.00 2 320.00
3.97 48 7622.40 5 794.00
3.96 11 1742.40 12 1900.80
3.85 1 ■154.00
3.82 2 305.60
3.81 3 457.20
3.76 1 150.40
3.73 2 298.40
3.67 1 146.80
3.66 7 1024.80
3.64 3 436.80 1 145.60
3.63 6 871.20 5 726.00
3.61 2 288.80
3.60 5 720.00
3.56 11 1566.40
3.53 5 706.00 2 282.40
3.51 2 280.80 14 1965.00
3.50 4 560.00 1 140.00
3.49 5 698.00 1 139.60
3.46 2 276.80 17 2352.00
3.45 9 1242.00
3.44 4 550.40
3.41 4 545.60
3.40 3 408.00
3.38 ■ 2 270.40
3.37 1 134.80 2 269.60
3.32 1 132.80 47 6241.00
3.27 2 261.60 70 9156.00
3.09 1 123.60 62 7663.20
Totals 161 $25,266.80 2 72 $36,482.80

Average weekly income: White $156.94 Black $134.13

APPENDIX III

d  y  c



1

IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

SAVANNAH DIVISION

2304

A DAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff

Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation
Do f endant

U . S. DISTRICT COURT 
Southern District of Ga. 

Filed in office

Cliiof Deputy Clerk

Complaint

I
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

iJ343 (4), 42 U.S.C. 'J2000e-h( 1 ) and 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202.

I his is suit in equity authorized and instituted pursuant to 

Title VII of the Act of Congress known as "The Civil Rights Act 

1964", 42 U.S.C. 1 2000 et seq. and for a declaratory judgment as 

to rights established under such legislation. Jurisdiction of 

this Court is invoked to secure the protection of and redress the 

deprivation of rights secured by 42 U.S.C. §§2000 et seq., 

providing for injunctive and other relief against racial d i s c r i m i ­

nation in employment.

11
» Plaintiff brings this action on his behalf and on behalf of 

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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class which plaintiff 

represents is composed of persons who are employed or may be e m ­

ployed by the Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation (the "Company") 

at its plants and other facilities located in and around Savannah, 

Georgia and in the State of Georgia who have been denied, or in 

the future will be denied, equal employment opportunities by the 

Company on the grounds of their race or color. This class is so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are

1*
'''I



questions of law and fact common to the class; the claims or d e ­

fenses of plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class; and 

plaintiff fairly and adequately protects the interest of the • 

class. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the 

class, thereby making appropriate injunctive relief and c o r r e s ­

ponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.

Iff
This is a proceeding for a declaratory judgment as to p l a i n ­

tiff's rights and for preliminary and permanent injunction, r e ­

straining defendants from maintaining a policy, practice, custom 

or usage of (a) discriminating against plaintiff and other Negro 

persons in the class because of race or color with respect to 

compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment and 

(b) limiting, segregating and classifying employees of the Company 

in ways which deprive plaintiff and other Negro persons in the 

class of employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect 

their status as employees because of race and color.

IV

Plaintiff Adam Baxter is a Negro citizen of the United States 

residing in the C ity of Savannah in the State of Georgia. "Plnin-
i{
|liM .... ha-, been employed by defendant a I. its Savannah,
Georgia plant lor the post, fifteen years. Plaintiff has sought at 

various times and continues to seek promotions at the Company.

V

Defendant is a corporation doing business in and around 

Savannah, Georgia. The Company operates and maintains a sugar 

refining plant and other facilities in the City of Savannah and in 

the State of Georgia. The Company is an employer within the 

meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000-e (b) in that it is engaged in an 

industry affecting commerce and employs more than seventy-five 

persons. >



VI

The C o m p a n y  is divided into several operating departments. 

Job classifications in the Com p a n y  determine the'rate of payment

an employe-'- receives. Promotions from one job classification to 

another on a higher level within a department under ordinary 

circumstances depend, in part, upon the seniority standing of an 

employee in a given line of promotion. The seniority standing, 

in part, also determines which employees in a given department 

are laid-off tirst In the event of a reduction of the work force. 

Within each department are operators, operators helpers and 

reliel operators helpers. Employees in the latter two c l a s s i f i c a ­

tions assist "operators". Relief operators helpers are the lowest 

paid of the three classifications but, from time to time, perform 

many Oi the same job functions as the-other two. Being classifiec- 

as an o p e r a t o r 'helper is a prerequisite to being considered for 

promotion to the classification of operator. Plaintiff and the 

class he represents have been, throughout their employment with 

the Company, limited to the classification of relief operator 

helpers. Negroes are not and never were hired initially as either 

operators or operators helpers. White employees were and continue 

to be hired as operators or operators helpers and are given on- 

the-job training for such,jobs -it the Company. Negro relief 

operators helpers frequently train white employees for operators 

and operators helpers positions which they are to and do take. 

Pursuant to the policy, practice, custom and usage of the Company, 

Negro employees were and continue to be excluded from jobs in 

classifications other than that of relief operators helper.

Plaintiff and the class he represents are qualified for p r o ­

motions and tor training which could lead to p r o m o t i o n s ,•including 

promotion o the job of boiler room operator, on the same basis 

as promotion and training opportunities are provided for white 

employees.

VII



1

I

VIII

Plaintiff is presently employed as a relief operators helper 

in the Company's Boiler Room Department. He has approximately 

twelve years of service in this classification. His seniority is 

greater than that of many whites who have been promoted to 

operator. He has been wrongfully passed over, by reason of his 

race, in tilling vacancies in the operators helper and operator 

classifications.

IX

The Com p a n y  has a policy, practice, custom or usage of m a i n ­

taining segregated toilet, shower, washroom and locker room 

facilities and has refused and continues to refuse plaintiff and 

the- class he represents lull and free access to Com p a n y  facilities 

which are available to white employees.

X

The Com p a n y  has consistently and purposefully limited and 

deprived Negro employees of their rights under Title VII of the

Rights Act of 1 9 6 4 , with the intent and design to foster and 

protect the advantage, seniority and advancement of white e m p l o y ­

ees to the detriment of Negro employees.

XI

The C o m p a n y  maintains a policy, practice, custom or usage of 

discriminating against Negro employees by excluding them from 

certain job classifications, including boiler room operator and 

all supervisory, clerical and management positions.

XII

A. On or about January 1?, 1966, plaintiff filed a complaint 

with the I.qua! Employment O pportunity Commission (the "Commission"! 

alleging a violation by defendant of his rights under Title VII of 

the Civil High Act of 1964. On July 21, 1967, plaintiff was 

n o t i c e d  by t.. Commission that reasonable cause to belie've that 

hi . tight s were violated had been found and that conciliation



• I I or i •. would \>(• m.'i'J'- l>y l.hf' CommLscion to < 1 irninate tlv- viola- 

*'Y I'll', •) > I -' • t - r 11.. i y I'',, |%)j, 1.1 5 r. I i. I I was ...Jvi v-J.

by Lhr Comrnis ;ion that the C o m m ission had not: achieved voluntary 

compliance through conciliation and that plaintiff was entitled 

to institute a civil action in Federal District Court as p r o ­

vided in Title VII.

B. Neither the State of Georgia, the C o u n t y  of Chatham, nor 

the City ol Savannah has a law prohibiting the unlawful employment 

practices, alleged herein.

XIII

Plaintiff and the class he represents have no plain, adequate 

or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein 

and this suit for a declaratory judgment and a preliminary and 

permanent injunction is their only means of securing adequate r e ­

lief . Plaintiff and the class he represents are now suf f cring- and 

will continue to suffer irreparable i n j u r y f r o m  the defendant's 

policies, practices, customs and usages as set forth herein.

WI 1I-.KI-. [-OHr., plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court ad­

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

earliest practicable date, order this case to be in every way 

expedited and:

1. Grant plaintiff and the class he represents a preliminary 

and permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its agents, success­

ors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with them 

and at thar direction from continuing or maintaining any policy, 

practice, custom or usage of denying, abridging, withholding, 

conditioning, limiting or otherwise interfering with the rights 

of plaintiff and others similarly situated to enjoy equal e m p l o y ­

ment opportunities a.: j...cured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964.

^ 2 .  Grant plaintiri and the clas he represents a declaratory

3-£ a
o . \

* > \
• L> - x  -

V



J u . l . j m " " 1 l . h .11 I I I '  p o l  i.<: i.< p r a c t i c e - , ,  m i  ■. t o m - ,  . i n -1 i i - . a g , . - .

pJ.iLii"il ol hircLn vio J i I.m l.ho p i o v i s iorr. o I. III.lc VII oj U n ­

civil Right'-, Act ol 196-1.

3. Grant plaintill and the class he represents a preliminary 

and permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its agents, suc­

cessors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with 

them and at their direction from continuing or maintaining the 

policy, practice, custom and usage of violating the rights of 

Negro employees to equal access to defendant's plant facilities.

4. Grant plaintiff and the class he represents a preliminary 

and permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its agents, suc­

cessors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with 

them and at their direction from conditioning, limiting and 

depriving plaintiff and the class he represents of their o p p o r ­

tunity to promotions because of their race arid color.

а. Direct that plaintiff A dam Baxter be immediately promoted 

to the 'classification of operator, with seniority in such cla s s i ­

fication dating from the first instance of wrongful failure to 

place him in such classification.

б. Grant-plaintiff Adam Baxter back pay from July 2, 1965

in the amount of the difference between the wages he has actually 

earned and the wages he would have earned if he had been 

classified as an operator. I

7. Allow plaintiff his costs herein, including reasonable 

attorney's fees.

8. Grant such other and further relief as may appear to this 

Court to be equitable and just.

458/^ West Broad Street*
^ . O  1 f  -> r— r-, — I-. A   _ . _ •Savannah, Georgia
Jack Greenberg 
Robert Belton 
Wil l i a m  Bennett Turner 
10 Columbus Circle 
N e w  York, N. Y. 10019

Attorneys lor Plaintiffs

•s



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Souttiorn of fin

SAVANNAH DIVISION FUcd 1,1 cn'u'°

ADAM BAXTER, )
)

Plaintiff, )
)

vs. )
)

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING )
CORPORATION, )

)
Defendant. )

___ MAR 2.8 1968 __ , g_
Cko— L.__.rhUi___ _

Deputy Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

The defendant moves the Court as follows:

I

\  To dismiss the action because the complaint fails

to state a claim against defendant upon which relief can be 

granted.

II

To dismiss those portions of the complaint which 

pir>port to cast the complaint as a class action pursuant to 

Rule 23 (a) (3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in that it is

impossible for the defendant to answer intelligently the alle­

gations relating to a class action for the reasons that the 

class is not consistently defined in the complaint with the 

requisite particularity and precision called for by law.

P. O. Box 2126 
Savannah, Georgia 31402

HITCH, 

BY____

MILLER, BECKMANN Sc SIMPSON
Ik JnX

CONSTANGY & PROWELL
230 Peachtree Street, N.W. <7
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 BY_____________fActWy

l V
cER nncvTK  n r service

02

'.r ?'■ Miirs 
- in fhr • nwi oe

..........
-/ ■ ..................

d ^ A



IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE U. S. i,i.'"r [ 
Sow' ;■ Ca.

. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER
Plaintiff

vs.\
SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. n -2 r\t

Defendant.

I N T E R R O G A T O R I E S

TO: SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION, DefendantSavannah Bank Building 
Savannah, Georgia

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff demands, pursuant 
to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that 
defendant answer, under oath, within 15 days after the service 
hereof, the following written interrogatories, which written 
interrogatories relate to defendant's place of business in 
the City of Savannah, Georgia, known as Savannah Sugar Refin­
ing Corporation, and after the answer to each of the following 
written interrogatories, identify, separately and in a manner 
suitable for use as a description in a subpoena, all sources 
of information (whether documentary, human or otherwise) and 
all records maintained by defendant, or any other person or 
organization, upon which defendant relied in answering*the 
interrogatory or which pertain or relate to the information 
called for by the interrogatory:



I l

1. State whether or not defendant Savannah Sugar 
Refining Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Savannah 
Sugar") is a'corporation organized under and existing by vir­
tue of the laws of the State of New York, and, if not, under 
the laws of which State defendant is incorporated.

2. State where defendant Savannah Sugar has its 
home office and headquarters, plants and other place of busi­
ness and, with respect to each place, state the type of busi­
ness Conducted at such place.

3. State whether the principal business presently 
conducted by defendant Savannah Sugar is the refining, distri­
bution and wholesale sale ofcane sugar.

A. State whether defendant Savannah Sugar (a) has 
registered with the United States Government as a Plans for 
Progress firm; and (b) has contracted with the United States 
Government, any agency thereof or any'contractor with such 
Government or such agency.

5. State the total number of employees and the 
number of Negro employees which defendant Savannah Sugar (a) 
presently employs, (b) employed as of July 2, 1965, (c) em­
ployed as of July 2, 1966, and (d) employed as of July 2, 1967.

6. State the total number of employees and the 
number of Negro employees employed by defendant Savannah Sugar 
at or about its sugar refinery facility in or near Savannah, 
Georgia, (a) as of July 2, 1965, (b) as of July 2, 1966, (c) 
as of July 2, 1967, and (d) as of the date hereof.

7. State the total number of employees and the 
number of Negro employees employed by defendant S-vannah Sugar 
at^or about its main office and headquarters in or near

- i l o
\

-  2 -

- \l-



Savannah. Georgia, (a) as ol July 2, 196b, (b) as of July 2, 
1966, (c) as of July 2, 1967, and (d) as of the date hereof.

8. State with respect to each of the places and 
dates given in Interrogatories 6 and 7 above the job classifi­
cation, titles of employees, the total number of employees 
and the number of Negro employees in each such job classifica­
tion title, and the hourly rate of pay or other method of 
compensation of each such job classification title.

9. State the total number of employees and the 
number of Negro employees employed by defendant Savannah 
Sugar, at (i) its sugar refinery and (ii) its main office 
and headquarters, who perform as a principal duty of their 
employment supervisory functions (i.e., those employees who 
have the power and duty of hiring, firing or promoting other 
employees or the effective recocEr-endation of same, or who 
direct or assign other employees in the performance of work 
for the defendant Savannah Sugar.)

10. With respect to the employees employed by 
defendant Savannah Sugar at (i) its sugar refinery and (ii) its 
main office and headquarters in supervisory functions, as de­
fined in Interrogatory 9 above, list the job classification 
titles of such employees, and the total number of such em­
ployees and the number of Negro employees in each job classi­
fication title.

11. Lists the names of all such supervisory em­
ployees in each job classification title given in answer to 
Interrogatory 10 above, whether such employee is Negro or not, 
the dates of initial employment with defendant Savannah Sugar 
of each such employee, the positions which each such employee

- 3 - 
- IT-"



held in the course of such employment, the dates upon which 
each such employee was first appointed to a supervisory posi­
tion, as defined in Interrogatory 9 above, and the hourly rate 
of pay or other method of compensation presently paid by de­
fendant Savannah Sugar to each such employee.

12. State the personal qualifications required by 
defendant Savannah Sugar for promotion or appointment to each 
job classification title classified as a supervisory position 
in Interrogatory 10 above.

13. State whether any of the Negro employees em­
ployed by defendant Sayannah Sugar in non-supervisory positions 
possess any of the qualifications listed in response to 
Interrogatroy No. 12 above.

14. State the number, names and job classification 
titles of employees employed by defendant Savannah Sugar in 
the boiler room at its sugar refinery in or about Savannah, 
Georgia, on (i) July 2, 1965, (ii) July 2, 1966, (iii) July 2, 
1967, and (iv) the date hereof, and whether each of such 
employees is Negro or not.

15. State the date of initial employment of 
plaintiff Adam Baxter, the position for which he was first 
hired and the hourly rate of pay or other method of compensa­
tion then paid.

16. With respect to the whole period of employment 
of plaintiff Adam Baxter by defendant Savannah Sugar, list 
each job classification title, specific duty and department
of employment, hourly rate of a. or other method of compensa­
tion and the inclusive dates thereof with respect to plaintiff 
Adam Baxter. .> -r’"' ■

' - 4 -

» -



17. State whether plaintiff Adam Baxter is dis­
qualified for any reason whatsoever for employment by defen­
dant Savannah Sugar in a supervisory position, as defined in 
Interrogatory 9 above, and, if so, state such reason or rea­
sons .

18. State the reason or reasons defendant Savannah 
Sugar has not appointed plaintiff Adam Baxter to the position 
of Operator Reliefer in the boiler room at its Savannah sugar 
refinery.

19. State the reason or reasons defendant Savannah 
Sugar appointed Joseph Brinson and John Andrew rather than 
plaintiff Adam Baxter to the position of relief operator in 
the boiler room at its Savannah sugar refinery.

20. State the history of employment with defendant 
Savannah Sugar of Joseph Brinson and John Andrew, including 
their dates of initial employment, positions to which they 
have been promoted and dates thereof, their respective hourly 
rate or other method of compensation and dates of increases 
thereof, and any special skills or training which they may 
have, if any.

21. List and describe the duties, hourly rates of 
pay or other method of compensation and necessary qualifica­
tions of the relief operator and other similarly named job 
titles in the boiler room at defendant Savannah Sugar's re­
finery .

22. State whether defendant Savannah Sugar or any 
of its officers, agents or supervisory employees at its 
Savannah refinery have learned or have attempted to learn 
whether plaintiff Adam Baxter has completed any vocatfonal

- 5 - 

-'4 -



training or formal education courses at any time during his 
employment by defendant.

23. State whether defendant Savannah Sugar has 
maintained, permitted or condoned the maintenance of segregated, 
(i.e., separate white and Negro) sanitary locker and sanitary 
facilities at its Savannah refinery.

24. State whether defendant Savannah Sugar has 
maintained two lockers and separate sets of sanitary facilities 
at its Savannah refinery and, if so, when a sign with the de­
signation "White" was last maintained over the door of one of 
two said sets of locker and sanitary facilities.

25. State whether any Negro employee of defendant 
Savannah Sugar has ever used that set of locker and sanitary 
facilities at its Savannah Sugar refinery which was formerly 
designated by the sign "White."

26. State whether, defendant Savannah Sugar, its 
officers or agents or any supervisory employee has ever in­
structed any employee that the Negro employees are permitted 
or entitled to use that set of locker and sanitary facilities 
which had been formerly designated by the sign "White."

27. State whether the defendant Savannah Sugar
has ever reassigned lockers after the sign "White" was taken 
down so that Negro employees would be interspersed among 
other employees. __ v

~1T. if.-'kiadsdon 
Bobby L.'mjl

Is to certify that  I have this day mailed a copy of the fori- ,  r „ i  1 o „ ,  „  . ̂ 458~2" West Broad street. 10. . ; Aujjmn'̂  Savannah, Georgia
“ ••• ^ . . . r ^ > \ h v  <)« posi in« the s in  e in the Unit. ~
i ' l l  properly adtlresseJ, with adequate postage thereon.

. .day of. ............ 19^ . ^

Jack Greenberg 
Robert Belton 
William Bennett Turner 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N. Y. 10019
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
_________SAVANNAH DIVISION___________

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
Southern District of Ga. . 

Filed in office

ADAM BAXTER, ) JUN 2 S I960 ̂

Plaintiff, ) -■&**■*■ R-g It
 ̂ Deputy Clerk

-v- • ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304
)

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING )
CORPORATION, )

)
Defendant. )

______________________________________ )

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER 
_________INTERROGATORIES ___

NOW COMES Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, 

Defendant, and moves this Honorable Court to extend until 

September 15, 1968, the time within which Defendant may 

answer or object to the Interrogatories served on him 

by Plaintiff on the 24th day of June, 1968 on the ground 

that the Interrogatories are numerous and complicated and 

it is impossible to prepare adequate answers unless time 

is extended, as is more particularly shown by the Affidavit 

of Walter C. Scott, Vice President and Secretary of said 

Corporation, attached hereto and marked Exhibit "A".

HITCH! MILLER, BECKMANN & SIMPSON

bv M_
Attorney for Defendant.

P. O. Box 2126 
Savannah, Georgia

-  I (- '



STATE OF GEORGIA )
)

COUNTY OF CHATHAM )
A F F I D A V I T

PERSONALLY APPEARED before me, the undersigned 

officer, duly authorized and empowered to administer 

oaths, Walter C. Scott, who, after first being duly sworn 

deposes and says:

1. That he is the Vice President and Secretary 

of Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation and is presently 

acting in this executive capacity.

2. That he has examined carefully the Interro­

gatories served upon Defendant's attorney on the 24th day 

of June, 1968.

3. That, in his considered opinion, it will 

necessitate an extension of time until September 15, 1968 

to answer adequately the Interrogatories propounded to 

Defendant.

X r (SEAL)
Walter C. Scott, Vice President 

and Secretary of
Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation

Sworn to and subscribed before 

me this Xo day of June, 1968.

______ ~̂) Clltj X  _________
Notary Pub^^c - State of Georgia

My commission expires:
,."

_ p j  G*.I no

X

~ \ 1 -



ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER 
______ INTERROGATORIES________

THIS CAUSE COMING ON to be heard on Motion of 

Defendant to extend time to answer Interrogatories or 

object to same, served on the Defendant by the Plaintiff, 

and the Court hearing argument of counsel and being fully 

advised, it is hereby

ORDERED that Defendant's time to answer or 

object to the Interrogatories be anc^^the same is hereby 

extended to and including the X^th^day of September, 1968.

THIS day of June, 1968.

United States District Court Judge 
Southern District of Georgia 
Savannah Division.

V

-  \



ORDER FOR HEARING ON MOTION TO EXTEND 
TIME FOR ANSWERING INTERROGATORIES

ON MOTION OF DEFENDANT, Savannah Sugar Refining

Corporation, the matter is hereby set for Rearing in

Brunswick, Georgia, on the day of

1968 at I I o'clock *A,.m .
/ 1 ,

TÎ IS ^  ‘ day of June, 1968.

(/ I’vl.

v

United States District Court Judge 
Southern District of Georgia 
Savannah, Division

CTTIFKWTI' OF SERVICE 
TO* l» to certify that I have thte *■» ̂  ̂  ./

th. I,'T O .irf  m aucr v i:h a copy of th »  P>«
- :it, <1 S ta te s  Mail a co p y  o f yam*: h i 1 - P

•lh a d eq u ate  p ostage  tlu ro .-n . ^

TO.*.. -y ■< .
........

"  Attorney for..

. r.»

<w

v

\
\

\ X

- 1 1  •



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
_________ SOUTHERN DIVISION

U, 5. DISTRICT COURT 
Soutiisrn District of Ga» 

JO led in office

ADAM BAXTER,

Plaintiff,
- v-

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant.

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

m  ?. i 1353 lg

Deputy CXerit

CIVIL ACTION NO. ___2304

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR FILING ANSWERS 
______TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

UPON CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES the 'time for answering 

the Interrogatories in the above styled case is extended until 

September 9, 1968.

DATED: August 21, 1968.

U. S. District Court Judge, E.J.C. of 
Georgia

HS(k

\
X

X
\



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
________SAVANNAH DIVISION___________ _ U.

So Dtsrwcr 
utfler” iJist,i ' -lou ..

IT h!,;x 
<-■ t or 
M  co Gu.

ADAM BAXTER,

Pla inti f f

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)

\

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES

Defendant, Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, 

by Robert Fenn Giles, General Superintendent-Refineries, 

answers the Interrogatories served on the corporation by 

Plaintiff on June 24, 1968, as follows:

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Yes.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Port Wentworth, Georgia,

plant; Savannah, Georgia. General Offices - Savannah,

Georgia office; Port Wentworth, Georgia, refinery.

INTERROGATORY NO, 3: Yes.

INTERROGATORY NO. 4 : (a) No.

(b) No single contract has ever exceeded Ten 

Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) with the United States Government, 

or any agency thereof.

INTERROGATORY NO. 5; (a) Presently employed;

Total: 559

No. Negro 331 •

c l  t



(b) As o£ July 2, 1165:

Total: 624

No. Negro: 370

(c) As of July 2

Total: 601

No. Negro: 346

(d) As of July 2

Total: 587

No. Negro: 346

j!

INTERROGATORY NO. 6:

(a) As of July 2

Total: 573

No. Negro: 368

(b) As of July

Tota 1: 54:

No. Negro: 344

, 1966:

, 1967:

, 1965:

, 1966:



(c) As of July 2, 1967:

Total: 539

No. Negro: 344

(d) As of this date:

Total: 509

No. Negro: 329

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: Objections.

INTERROGATORY NO. 8 : Objections.

INTERROGATORY No. 9: Objections.

INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Objections.

INTERROGATORY NO. 11 : Objections.

INTERROGATORY NO. 12: The qualifications considered

for promotion or appointment to a supervisory position are 

as follows:

ability to perform the job, seniority, individual's

interest and desire for the job, and present qualifications 

based on previous training and experience.

Barras, Sidney, other - Boiler Room Operator 

Baxter, Adam, negro - Relief Boiler Room Helper

INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Yes.

INTERROGATORY NO. 14: July 2, 1965



TOTAL

TOTAL:

TOTAL:

Brinson, J. C., other - Relief Boiler Room Operator 
Height, Lucius, negro - Boiler Room Helper 
Hodges, E. C., other - Relief Boiler Room Operator 
McMillan, Willie Jr., negro - Boiler Room Helper 
Morgan, Inman Jr., other - Boiler Room Operator 
Stokes, Ted, other - Boiler Room Operator 
Washington, Dan, negro - Boiler Room helper.
Nine (9) .

July 2, 1966:
Baxter, Adam, negro - Relief Boiler Room Helper 
Brinson, J. c., other - Boiler Room Operator 
Height, Lucius, negro - Boiler Room Helper 
Hodges, E. C., other - Boiler Room Operator 
McMillan, Willie Jr., negro - Boiler Room Helper 
Morgan, Inman Jr., other - Boiler Operator 
Washington, Dan, negro - Boiler Room Helper 
Seven (7)

July 2, 1967:
Baxter, Adam, negro - Relief Boiler Room Helper 
Brinson, J. c., other - Boiler Room Operator 
Height, Lucius, negro - Boiler Room Helper 
Hodges, E. C. other - Boiler Room Operator 
Holiday, Dennis F., other - Relief Boiler Room Operator 
McMillan, Willie Jr., negro - Boiler Room Helper 
Morgan, Inman Jr., other - Boiler Room Operator 
Singleton, Ned Jr., negro - Relief Boiler Room Helper 
Washington, Dan, negro - Boiler Room Helper

Nine (9)

-3-H



June »0, 1968:
B a x t e r ,  Adam, n e q r o  -  R e l i e f  B o i l e r  Room H e l p e r

Brinson, J. C., other - Boiler Room Operator-Foreman
Height, Lucius, negro - Boiler Room Helper
Hodges, E. C., other. Boiler Room Operator-Foreman
Holiday, Dennis F., other - Relief Boiler Room Operator-

Foreman
McMillan, Willie Jr., negro - Boiler Room Helpar
Morgan, Inman Jr., other - Boiler Room Operator-Foreman
Singleton, Ned Jr., negro - Boiler Room Helper
williams. Frank Jr., negro - Relief Boiler Room Operator-

Foreman
TOTAL: Nine (9)

INTERROGATORY MO. 15: Adam Baxter - Initial 
Employment: June 27. 195$. Hired as: Laborer in the Char
House. Initial Rate: $1.33 per hour. Education: 9th Grade.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16: Adam Baxter - Emolovment Record
6/27/55 Laborer General Laborer in the Char 

House. Cleaning 1.43
7/1/57 Helper Electric Shop - Cleaning 

Motors, replacing light bulbs. 
Assist in cutting conduit pipe, 
and assist Electrician. This 
was done under the direction 
of an electrician. 1.53

7/22/57 Helper Same (rate increase) 1.63
5/19/58 Helper same (rate increase) 1.68
8/11/58 Helper Same (rate increase) 1.75
4/20/59 Helper Same (rate increase) 1.80
8/24/59 Helper Training in the boiler room 

as boiler room helper and relief 
Electrician's Helper but also
substitutes as relief boiler room 
helper (When performing as relief
boiler room helper receives rate 
for that job (1.80 per hour). 1.90

9/7/59 Boiler Room Boiler Room - opening & closing
Helper valves as directed by the boiler
Relief room operator, carrying boiler

water samples to the laboratory 
for checking, maintaining good 
housekeeping in the boiler room

500

1.80



i ̂ 14/60 Electrician Primary classification -
Helper electrician's helper, when

substitute as relief boiler 
room helper receives rate of 
the electrician's helper job 
which rate is higher 1.95

9/5/60 Same Same
5/15/61 " ft
9/25/61 " tt
10/1/62 " ••
5/6/63 •• -
10/7/63 M
10/19/64 •• M
10/18/65 »• M
9/12/66 •• "
)/11/67 » -

2.05 

2 .M 

2.18 

2.28 

2,32 

2.42 

2.50 

2.59 

2.70 

2.81

INTERROGATORY NO. 17: No. Adam Baxter is not
disqualified for any supervisory position but he was not the better
qualified employee for the job of boiler room operator when the
vacancies occurred and were filled.

INTERROGATORY HO. 18» Same as Interrogatory Mo. 17.
INTERROGATORY NO. 19• Same as Interrogatory Mo. 17 

and Interrogatory No. 18.
INTERROGATORY MO. 20i Joseph Brinson - Initial 

Employment; January 14, 1957. Hired asi A helper in the 
mechanical crew, initial ratet $1.53 per hour. Education! 
High School Graduate.
1/14/57 Helper

7/1/57 Helper

Maintenance - Assist mechanic 
in the repair of machinery, 
pumps, compressors
Maintenance - packaging, 
repair & adjustments on small 
packaging machiner

7/22/57 

5/19/ ib

Jr.Mechanic Working as shift mechanic for 
packaging machines repair

Same Took on more responsibility 
and became acquainted with 
automated machinery

1.53

1.58

1.68

1.73

5/1*



n/u/ia f. iiniC WoriUn; sri„rt maintenance 
in packaging. Very little 
nvpervision required 1.80

4/20/55 a.jme Same 1.86
a, 3 4 / 5 3 Same Same 1.96
3/14/6C Same Same 2.02
i / j / 6 0 Same Same 2.12
5/16/61 Packaging

Mechanic
Working on packaging mechanical 
crew. No longer shift mechanic 2.17

9/2i/61 Same Maintenance and adjustment of 
all types of automatic 
packaging machinery 2.27

4/30/62 Same Same 2.33
10/1/62 Same Same 2.43
5/6/63 Same Same 2.47
10/7/63 Same Same 2.57
7/6/64 Same Same 2.63
7/24/64 Boiler room Transferred to boiler 

operator- room to learn duties of the 
relief trainee operator- To become 

familiar with the automatic 
equipment & controls in 
this area 2.63

10/15/64 Same Same 2.72
5/31/65 Same Same 2.77
10/18/65 Same Relief Operator Duties 2.87
6/6/66 Boiler room 

Operator
Full responsibility for the 
steam generation facilities 
and power-steam station 2.87

3/12/o6 Same Same 2.9)8
11/21/66 Same Same 3.08
6/5/07 ddnc Same 3.13
5/11/6 /’ Same* Same 3.24
3/14/68 L*olie:; room 

or- ran Same 132.80



John Andrews -Initial Employment; January 14, 1957
Hired as: Clarification station liquid sugar operator 

trainee.
Initial rate* $1.53 per hour 
Education; High School Graduate

1/14/57 Utility man Began training to become a
liquid sugar operator.
Necessary to learn the use
and automatic control of
steam equipment, pressure
vessels, and vacuum vessels 1.53

4/8/57 Trainee & Same 1.58
Relief

7/22/57

5/19/58
8/11/58
4/20/59
8/24/59
3/14/60

9/5/60

5/15/61

9/25/61
4/30/62
10/1/62
5/6/63
6/17/63

7/8/63

10/7/63

Liquid Sugar Operate automatically controlled 
Operator station to produce three

different liquid sugar products 1.68
Same Same 1.75
Same Same 1.82
Same Same 1.89
Same Same 1.99
Utility Transferred to packing house
Operator to learn the operation of

specialty packaging machines 2.01
Specialty Relief operator of specialty
machine Jr. packaging machines 2.11
operator
Specialty Operation of automatic
machine packaging machinery 2.14
operator
Same Same 2.24
Same Same 2.28
Same Same 2.38
Same Same 2.42
Bag-Pak Packaging-supervise and
Relief operate the packaging of
operator 100# unites & 25# units 2.68
Specialty Packaging - operation of
machine automatic packaging
operator machinery 2.42
Same Same 2.52

10/19/64 Same Same 2.61



10/18/65 Same
12/ 1/ 6 '

9/12/66

11/1/66

rtoi.er
room
Operauir- 
Re1ie f 
Tru mec
Same

Specialty
Machine
Operator

9/11/67 Specialty 
Operator

S.ime
... learn it,,, dm ios ot i - 
..pera» or ■ iu become
familiar with the automatic 
equipment #, controls in this
t. rea

A ls o  maintenance & testing of
a i l  f  i  re  l in e s

Transferred to packaging 
specialty machine operator 
and loose bulk sugar station
operator
Loose bulk sugar station 
operator

2.70

2.70

2.81

2.81

2.92
INTERROGATORY_NOj— 2_1, Bollerroom Opera tor-Co™__
The total responsibility for starting, maintaining

on the line, and closing down the three high pressure steam 
boilers which are automated with the accompanying oil, steam 
ana water pumps, and gauges, dials, and condensors. This 
department supplies all of the electrical power for the 
operation of the plant, and the necessary load of steam to 
operate the steam turbines, and the attendant needs for steam 
m  the plant. Also, starts, keeps in operation, and stops 
the char revivifier necessary for the revivification of the char 
in the char department system, on the 2nd and 3rd shifts, assumes, 
with the aid of an electrician, the overall responsibility of 
power superintendent for all operations. Prerequisites are a 
thorough knowledge of .utomated equipment, constant alertness, 
deaication, an aptitude to foresee necessary changes and adjust­
ments to be made in the automated equipment that controls the 
steam .oaa and the safety oi the three boilers.
R-’TE $132 .60 put .-iek.

loom Operator - ’oreman
S.I.W as ..nos. o. the regular boiler room opera i or- foreman.

The ... uculf ..r rate <. f pay per h^ur i3 the same as v -.at of tfw
.Jo ± — . *r< ju, opCifiiwr,

32 .86 . her. reliov; ,u .

V /  2



INTERROGATORY NO. ? ? : Kmplnypor. who p.» r (  I r l  pa I r* in  

vocal until I pi . H| l.llli:. Ill complete vocal Iona I ltalnMw| hi any ot liei

formal education courses report such training and the successful 
completion of such training to the personnel counselor who then 
makes this a part of the record. Adam Baxter has never reported 
or apprised the Company of any vocational training.

INTERROGATORY NO. 23: through INTERROGATORY NO. 27t

Several months prior to July 2, 1965, which was the 
effective date of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Savannah Sugar 
Corporation took specific steps to insure that it was in 
compliance with both the letter and spirit of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964. One of the first things that the Defendant did 
was to make sure that it communicated to its employees that 
there was no segregation of any of its facilities, including 
the sanitary locker and sanitary facilities at its refinery.
In fact, several months before the effective date of the Civil 
Rights Act, all signs designating color were removed and as 
aforestated, all employees were specifically, both orally and 
by official written notice, informed that no facilities were 
segregated on the basis of race or color. At the Savannah 
Sugar Refinery, there are two lockers and two sanitary 
facilities; however, both the locker room facilities and 
the rest rooms themselves are available to all employees for 
use without regard to race, color, creed or national origin in 
keeping with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Negro employees 
have been free and in fact, negro employees have used either 
oi the two locker-room and rest-room facilities furnished to 
employees of the refinery without regard to race, color, 
creed or national origin. New lockers are assigned on the 
basis of seniority which is not based in any way upon race,

r j



croeci, color or national origin. As the Company obtains 
now lockers to replace many of the old lockers and a»
it obtains these new lockers, they are made available to 
all employees without regard to race, on the basis of their 
seniority. Not only does the Company deny that it has 
maintained segregated rest-room and locker facilities, but 
it affirmatively shows that it has taken affirmative action 
to insure its compliance with both the letter and the spirit 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

HITCH, MILLER, BECKMANN & SIMPSON

.v f r l l h l U

Post Office Box 2126 
Savannah, Georgia 31402
Attorneys for Defendant

5 i  a
2s v



STATE OF GEORGIA )
)

COUNTY OF CHATHAM )

PERSONALLY APPEARED before roe, the undersigned 
officer duly authorized to administer oaths, ROBERT 
FENN GILES, General Superintendent-Refineries, who, after 
first being duly sworn deposes and says that the Answers 
to the Interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiff in 
this action, are true to the best of his knowledge and 
belief.

-̂ j /  -7Robert Fenn Giles

Sworn to and subscribed before 
roe this 6 day of August, 1968.

 ̂ - £ fCcutr _____Notary Public - state of Georgia
My comm, exp: Notary |Mlie. CHtl-nm Coi.mv On.

My Cor.m.: :i k..j«Hr. May i;i. x i

570



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA 
__________SAVANNAH DIVISION_________

ADAM BAXTER, )
)

Plaintiff, )
)

-v- )
)SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING )

CORPORATION, )
)

Defendant. )
)

_____________________________________ )

„ «. DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL ACTION MO. 2304

OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES 
Defendant, Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, 

objects to the following Interrogatories Heretofore served 
on the Corporation by the Plaintiff on the 24th day of Juna,
1968 on the grounds stated:

INTERROGATORY NO. 7: That the matters called for 
under this specific Interrogatory were never made the subject 
of any charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission nor was it in any manner the subject of the process 
of investigation or conciliation before the Commission: nor is 
it germane to a facet of class action as contemplated by the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964; nor would it lead, in any manner, to 
the discovery of any facts which would be remotely concerned 
with the issue involved in or raised by the Complaint.

INTERROGATORIES NUMBERED 8. 9, 10, and 11: Same 
grounc as Interrogatory No. 7. Objection is also made to the 
enumerated interrogatories for the reason that the information 
called for is confidential business information which the Defendant 
should r.< c ae required to disclose unless and until it becomes

SKrj

- -?■



relevant to a pending issue

DATED: August 21, l'i68

HITCH. MILLER, BECKMANN & SIMPSON

B V  ^ lU~ f  _____
Post Office Box 2126 I
Savannah, Georgia 31402



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
__________SAVANNAH DIVISION__________

ADAM BAXTER, )
)

Plaintiff. )
)

-v- ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304
)SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING )

CORPORATION, )
)

Defendant. )
)

______________________ ____________ )

NOTICE OF HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will bring 

the annexed objections on for hearing before this Court at 
the United states Court House, Third Floor, Poat Office
Building, on the ________ day of ________________, 1 9 6 8

at _____________o'clock___.M. in the forenoon of that day
or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard.

DATED: August 21, 1968.

HITCH, MILLER, BECKMANN « SIMPSON

Post Office Box 2126 
Savannah, Georgia 31402

TO: E. H. Gadsden
Bobby L. Hill 
458-1/2 West Broad Street 
Savannah, Georgia
Jack Greenberg 
Robert Belton 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N. Y. 10019
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

6b'i



I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIASAVANNAH DIVISION 11 • S. DISTRICT CvURT

Southern Riotrlu*. of 3a. 
i'iiod lu ore toe

ADAM BAXTER,

-v-

)
)Plaintiff,
)

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION,

D e p u i/  C le r k

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

Defendant. )
)

MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS

i

i

Come now the plaintiff, by his undersigned attorneys, and 
move the court for an order compelling defendant Savannah Sugar 
Refining Corporation to answer Interrogatories Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 
and 11 heretofore served on defendant on June 23, 1968.

1 luinti ff herewith submits a memorandum of law in support of i 
this motion to compel.

Jack Greenberg Robert Belton 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N. Y. 10019
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated:

6 /or



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TUB; SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff,

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION,
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304
)

Defendant. )
_____________)

NOTICE OF HEARING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned will bring the 

annexed objections on for hearing before this Court at the United 
States Court House, Third Floor. Post Office Building, on the
- ?3rd day of ■ October--------- lges. at m.nn o'clock j^.m .
m  the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can ' 
be heard.

DATED:

Jack Greenberg Robert Belton 
10 Columbus Circle New York, N. Y. 10019
Attorneys for Plaintiff

a o

■'/



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff,

v.
SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION,

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
.)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS 

TO INTERROGATORIES

Defendant has filed objections to Interrogatories Nos. 7,
8, 9, 10 and 11 on the ground that the information sought by 
these interrogatories "were never made subject of a charge filed 
with EEOC; nor was it in any manner the subject of investigation 
or conciliation before the Commission; nor is it germaine to 
[any] facet of a class action as contemplated by the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964; nor would it lead, in any manner, to the discovery 
of any facts which would be remotely concerned with the issue in­
volved in or raised by the Complaint." Defendant further filed 
objections to Interrogatories 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the ground that 
the information sought by these interrogatories calls for confi­
dential business information. Plaintiff submits that the ob­
jections to interrogatories raised by the defendant are patently 
without merit and that plaintiff's motion to compel answers to 
those interrogatories should be granted.

Al I he threshold it must bo restated that the permissible



scope of examination through the use of interrogatories is de­
termined by Rule 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 
which provides that examination may be taken of any matter not 
privileged which is relevant to the subject matter in the pend­
ing action. Contrary to the position taken by the defendant, it 
is the subject matter of the action which controls the permissible 
scope of examination, rather than the issues raised in the action I 
(emphases supplied). Patton v. Southern Bell T & C Tel. Co.. 38 
F.R.D. 428, 429 (N.D. Ga. 1965), citing Hickman v, Tavlor. 329 
U. S. 495 (1947); 4 Moore, Federal Practice, 9 26.15, p. 1171 
(2nd ed. 1967); United States v. Boano. 10 P.R.O. 379 (S.D. N.Y. 
1954).

What then is the "subject matter" of the instant case? A 
simple reading of Paragraphs VI, VII, VIII, IX, X and XI of the 2
complaint clearly shows that plaintiff is seeking relief from the 
plant-wide system of racially discriminatory employment practices 
of defendant alleged to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C, §2000e et seq. It might be argued 
that the charge plaintff filed with EEOC complained only of the 
promotion denied to plaintiff because of race and color; however, i 
implicit in the charge which plaintiff filed was the claim that ! 
his denial of the promotion and the reasons therefor flowed from 
practice and policy of defendant of discriminating against Negro 
persons because of race and color. See Jenkins v. United Gas 
Corp.. ___ F.2d ___ (5th Cir. Aug. 29, 1968), 58 bC % 9154.

It is now settled in this Circuit that a class action may 
be maintained under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., supra; Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach
Corp.. ___ F.2d ___ (5th Cir. July 16, 1968), 58 1£ f 9140. And
all members of the class need not have filed a charge with EEOC 
in order for a representative member of the class to file a

-  2 -



class action. Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Coro.. supra.
Interrogatories Nos. 7 and a  seek information as to the 

racial population of the various job classifications at de-
I

fendant Savannah facilities. This being a class action, clearly 
Liien, this information will tend to shed light on the issue of 
whether or not defendant discriminates against Negro persons in 
its promotional practices. As the court said in Alabama v.
United States. 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir. 1962), in the problem 
of racial discrimination statistics often tell much and courts 
listen. See, also. Cypress v. Newport News Non-Sectarian 
Hospital. 375 F.2d 648 (4th Cir. 1967) and Quarles v. Philip 
Morris. 271 F. Supp. 842 (E. D. Va. 1968).

Defendant also objects to Interrogatories Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 
11 on the ground that this examination calls for information eon-' 
cerning confidential business information. Plaintiff submits 
that the bare assertion by defendant that the examination called 
for in these interrogatories is confidential business information! 
is an insufficient reason as a matter of law to sustain defend­
ant's objections to these interrogatories. See Calloway v.
Rolland Laboratory, 9 F.R.D. 88 (W. D. Mo. 1949) (where an em­
ployee was permitted to examine records relating to his own 
employment with defendant as well as other members of his class); 
Goldman v. Checker Taxi Company. 325 F.2d 853 (7th Cir. 1963);
4 Moore, Federal Practice f 34.15, pp. 2519-2520 (2nd ed. 1967).

Moreover, defendant cannot assert that the information re­
quested in Interrogatories 8, 9 ,  10 and 11 comes under the pro­
tection of so-called confidentiality in view of the fact that 
the defendant, by being an "employer” within the meaning of 
Title VII is required by the Rules and Regulations of EEOC to 
report essentially the same information sought in these inter­
rogatories. See CCH, Employment Practice Guide, f 1302.

Additionally, since the plaintiff has the burden of

- 3 -

6 r ©



i

proof on the issues raised in the complaint -- the major issue 
being plant-wide racially discriminatory employment practices 
—  plaintiff submits that it would be reversible error not to 
require defendant to answer the information sought in Interrog­
atories 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. See Goldman v. Checker Taxi Co.. 
supra.

Respectfully submitted.

Jack Greenberg 
Robert Belton 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N, Y. 10019
Attorneys for Plaintiff

i" ‘ nriify lliai ] haw* this f' >v trailer! c c y j  c l  Iha fore

Motion......R.N.Hltch
:,.r Defendant , .. ,i(i

4 th October.... i<68

4 -



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER
Plaintiff

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

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant

OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

In t h is  a c t io n  w h ich  i s  b rough t under Title VII of the Civil 
R ig h ts  A c t  of 1964 two areas of interlocutory controversy are involved:

CLASS ACTION

Rule 23 provides that as soon as practicable after the cos— encement 
o f  an action b rough t as a class action the court should determine by order 
w hether i t  i s  to  be so maintained. The judgment shall Include and specify
the  members o f  th e  c la s s .  The c o m p la in t  a l le g e s  that the  class similarly 
s it u a t e d  to  p l a i n t i f f  c o n s is t s  o f  all persons employed by Savannah Sugar 
R e f in e ry  Company a t  Savannah who have been or will be denied equal employ 
ment o p p o r t u n it ie s  because  o f  r a c ia l  d is c r im in a t io n .

because  the  c la s s  was no t d e f in e d  w ith  the  re q u ire d  particularity and 
p r e c is io n .  The m otion  was argued on November 27th and t h i s  stage o f  the 
l i t i g a t i o n  seems to  be an a p p ro p r ia te  p o in t  lo r  e n tra n ce  o f  an i n i t i a l  order 
r e s p e c t in g  c la s s  r e p r e s e n t a t io n .*

(as f a r  .is  the Fifth C i r c u i t  i s  con ce rned ) the grievance procedures 
b e fo re  ta e  Equa l Employment O p p o r tu n ity  Com m ission provided for by

On t o s u o j o c c  c>- e v i d e n t i a r y  h e a r in g s  on the merits under Rule 23 (b) 
<,J> sc.,  c o . y i a  c Bar J o u r n a l. V o l .  j (Nov., 1968), 278 ff.

Defendant moved to dismiss the class action feature of the case

S in c e  P a r is  v . Crown Z e lle n b a ch , C o rp o ra t io n ,  398 F.2d 496



*•* T i l 1 '- 711 1,1 ,;*vf I R ig h ts  A l l  o f  I 'I f ,4  do not p reven t c la n s

a c t io n  by an a g g r ie v e d  employee on b e h a lf  o f  a c la s s  o f  employees 
in c lu d in g  th o se  who f i l e d  no g r ie v a n c e . The C o u rt o f  Appeals for this 
C i r c u i t  went on to  h o ld  th a t  such members o f  a c la s s  c o u ld  join ail co­
p l a i n t i f f s  in  the  a c t io n  in  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t. In  d e a l in g  with the 
scope o f  c la s s  a c t io n s  in  such c a se s  i t  r u le d  th a t  the  issues in the 
l i t i g a t i o n  a re  n o t to  be extended beyond the  re a ch  o f  th e  grievances 
in v o lv e d  in  the  c o m p la in t  tc  the  EEOC. Each o f  the  fo u r  plaintiffs in 
0 a t ŝ was an em ployee in  a se p a ra te  departm en t o f  Crown Zellenbach.
The C o u rt c o n s id e re d  each such p l a i n t i f f  to  be a p ro p e r representative 
o f  a l l  Negro em ployees w it h in  h is  p a r t i c u la r  departm en t.

On the  h e e ls  o f  O a t is came Je n k in s  v . U n ite d  Cas C o rp o ra t io n .

400 ; .2 d  28, a s u i t  b ro u gh t by an em ployee whose g r ie v a n c e  had not been 
s u c c e s s f u l ly  m ed ia ted  by EEOC. A f t e r  th e  l i t i g a t i o n  commenced the employer 
s a t i s f i e d  p l a i n t i f f  by g iv in g  h im  th e  d e s ir e d  p ro m o tio n . The trial court 
th e reupon  d ism is s e d  the  e n t i r e  c a se , in c lu d in g  p l a i n t i f f ' s  class action. 
R e v e rs in g , the  F i f t h  C i r c u i t  o bse rved  th a t  the  c o m p la in t  was "a model of 
s p e c i f i c i t y  in  p la n t -w id e ,  sys tem -w ide  r a c i a l  d is c r im in a t io n "  and sharply 
d is a g re e d  w ith  th e  " p r in c ip a l  t h e s is "  o f  th e  D i s t r i c t  Judge, namely that 
"no common q u e s t io n  o f  f a c t  e x is t s  as to  a l l  Negro em p loyees of the 
d e fen d an t, s in c e  d i f f e r e n t  c irc u m s ta n c e s  su rrou nd  t h e i r  different jobs 
and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  in  th e  s t r u c t u r e  o f  th e  c o rp o r a t io n " .

G r i f f i n  tu rn ed  on a r e l a t i v e l y  n a rrow  p o in t  and i s  really only 
a r e a f f i r m a t io n ,  w ith  a d d i t io n a l  em phas is, o f  what the  same Court held 
in  O a t i s . I t  c i t e d  H a l l  v . W erthan Dag C o r p o ra t io n . 251 F. Supp. 184,
186 (T enn ., D .C .)  to  the  e f f e c t  th a t  r a c i a l  d is c r im in a t io n  in employment 
p re se n ts  a q u e s t io n  o f  f a c t  common to  a l l  Negroes in th e  class. However, 
G r i f f i n  d id  no t h o ld  th a t  in  T i t l e  V I I  c a s e s , as contrasted with school 
s e g re g a t io n  c a s e s , r a c ia l  d is c r im in a t io n  i s  n e c e s s a r i ly  against a class
•'is* *1 I ' l t ' I S S .

I , l u s  » 11 in r . i'i 1>C u s e fu l to  exam ine two d i s t r i c t  court
d e c is io n s  d e a l in g  w ith  the  d e te rm in a t io n  o f  c la s s e s  and sub-classes in 
equa l employment o p p o r tu n it y  c a se s . in  Hardy e t  a l .  v .  United States 
S t e e W ^ -^or a t io n  (August 2. 1V67, N .D ., A la . ) ,  67 LRRM 2505, Judge Lynne



had b e fo re  him fo u r ca se s  each in v o lv in g  d is c r im in a t io n  in  a se p a ra te

departm en t o f  th e  d e fen d an t. He ru le d  th a t  the  named employee-plaintiff in 
eac li case  w ou ld  a d e q u a te ly  re p re se n t  a l l  o th e r  Negro employees in the 
departm en t and s a id  th a t  the  c la s s  re p re se n te d  as so d e f in e d  would simplify 
and e x p e d ite  th e  t r i a l .  There  was no a p p e a l. In  K in g  v . Georgia Power Co.. 
69 LRR>! 2094 (August 9, 1968, N .D . , G a .)  Judge Sm ith  remarked that "Those 
a sp e c ts  o f  the  ca se  d e a l in g  w ith  in d iv id u a l  r e d re s s  f o r  the past acts of 
d is c r im in a t io n  a re  no t s u ite d  f o r  t r i a l  as a c la s s  a c t io n .  The aspects 
o f  th e  ca se  d e a l in g  w ith  in d iv id u a l  a c t s  o f  d is c r im in a t io n  and seeking 
in d iv id u a l  re d re s s  do no t su p p o rt a c la s s  a c t io n .  Whereas, some issues 
a re  by t h e i r  n a tu re  w e l l  s u ite d  to  d is p o s i t io n  in  a class action. For 
exam ple, the  d e s e g re g a t io n  o f  co m fo rt f a c i l i t i e s  o r  o th e r  p r a c t ic e s  th a t  

a re  com pany-w ide o r  a re  p a r t i c u la r l y  s u it e d  f o r  t r i a l  in  a c la s s  a c t io n . "

In  the  p re se n t  ca se  p l a i n t i f f  co m p la in s  o f  the policy of defendant 
in  m a in ta in in g  se g rega ted  t o i l e t ,  shower, washroom and locker room 
f a c i l i t i e s .  C le a r ly ,  in  t h i s  a re a  o f  a l le g e d  discriminatory practices 
a c la s s  a c t io n  i s  n o t o n ly  m a in ta in a b le  by p l a i n t i f f  b u t he can fairly and 
a d e q u a te ly  re p re s e n t  the  c la s s  w h ich  i s  made up o f  present and future 
Negro em ployees o f  d e fen d an t. The o n ly  p rob lem  here is whether the 
g r ie v a n c e  in  q u e s t io n  was f i l e d  w ith  EEOC and is w it h in  the ambit or 
p e r ip h e ry  o f  B a x t e r 's  i n i t i a l  c o m p la in t  to  th e  Commission. However, 
th a t  f a c t o r  may be o f  no im po rtan ce . See , in  this connection, Oatia.
398 ? .2 d  496 f .  in  any e v e n t, d e fend an t makes no c o n te n t io n  as to the 
mat e r .

The p l a i n t i f f  b r in g s  h is  c la s s  a c t io n  h e re  on b e h a lf  o f  a l l  Negroes 

in  th e  p la n t ,  c o m p la in in g  th a t  in  th e  s e v e ra l o p e ra t in g  depa rtm en ts  c o lo re d  

em p loyees a re  e x c lu d e d  from  jo b s  in  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s  o th e r  than  th a t  o f  

r e l i . c f  o p e ra to rs  h e lp e r s .  As to  h is  s ta n d in g  as r e p r e s e n t a t iv e  o f  a 

c la s s  c o n s is t in g  o f  a l l  Negro em ployees in  a l l  the  o p e ra t in g  depa rtm en ts 

the  l i t i g a n t s  h e re  a re  in  t-narp d is a g re e m e n t. Three  y e a rs  o f  j u d i c i a l  

in t e r p r e t a t io n  makes i t  p la in  th a t  nu p a r o c h ia l i t y  o f  app roach  i s  a c c e p ta b le  

in  c o n s t ru in g  o r  d e a l in g  w ith  T i t le  V I I .  However, the  b a s ic  r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  

lo r  d e te rm in in g  th e  e x te n t  o f  a c la s s  membership f a l l s  upon the  t r i a l  Judge.

< j >



He must try to keep the class feature of the litigation within reasonably 
manageable proportions and bounds. He should have a range of discretion 
in this connection to the extent of expediting trial.

The affidavit made by plaintiff in 1966 and which is presumably 
the basis of plaintiff's grievance is largely confined to discrimination 
in tiie boiler room. However, the scope of an EEOC complaint should not 
be strictly interpreted. There is probably enough in his grievance to 
constitute a complaint of racial discrimination which is company-wide rather 
than confined to his own particular department and his own specific grievance. 
Plaintiff who is an operator reliefer helper deposed that in nearly twwty- 
foer years' service he knew of no Negro employee being promoted to the 
position of operator or operator reliefer. These are company-wide and 
not merely boiler room job classifications. Within the requirements of 
Oatis, plaintiff appears to have standing to raise in this litigation 
as issues not only his personal grievance but through the clasq action 
to seek to remedy discrimination in job promotions in other departments. 
However, this does not mean that I must find that plaintiff Is an adequate 
and proper representative of such a broad class or classes as he seeks 
to represent.

There can be little doubt,and I hold,that he is a proper 
representative of the members of his race in the boiler room operation. 
Further, he may be a proper representative of a class conq>rised of all 
Negro employees of the defendant in all departments or in several depart­
ments. However, I shall make no determination in that respect until I 
possess fuller factual insight into the operations and employment practices 
of the Savannal) Sugar Refining Company.

Discovery procedures in this case reveal that of a total of 
8̂7 employees of the Company in 1967, no less than 346 are colored,
Yet as far as the record and p'leadings instruct me the only aggrievement 
is the one plaintiff made to EEOC. Allegations in the complaint do not 
necessarily determine the extent of a class. Any trial lawyer knows that 
asserveration and fact are sometimes complete strangers. Generally, the

C4)



s p e c i f i c a t io n  o f  c la s s  membership sh o u ld  be made by a c o u r t  w ith  

more f a c tu a l backg round b e fo re  i t  than  the  c o m p la in t  i t s e l f  a f f o r d s .

Assum ing e x is te n c e  o f  s i l e n t  ag g rievem en t among c o lo re d  

d is c r im in a t e e s  in  a l l  the  o p e ra t in g  depa rtm en ts o f  d e fe n d a n t, I 

am s t i l l  n o t p repa red  a t  t h is  tim e  to  d e s ig n a te  p l a i n t i f f  as the  

r e p re s e n ta t iv e  o f  a l l  Negro em ployees o f  th e  de fend an t as distin­
gu ish e d  from  th e  c la s s  o r  s u b - c la s s  o f  c o lo re d  em p loyees in the  

b o i le r  room. In June , 1968, n in e  pe rson s were employed th e re  (including 
B a x te r ) ,  o f  whom f iv e  were N eg roes, one o f  whom was a c o lo r e d  operator- 
fo rem an. F o r the  p re s e n t ,  I am g o in g  to  l im i t  the  c la s s  p a r t  of the  

a c t io n  to  em p loyees in  the  b o i l e r  room an d , c o n s is te n t  h e re w ith , c o u n se l 

f o r  de fend an t w i l l  p re s e n t  f o r  c o n s id e r a t io n  th e  fo rm a l manner o f  

n o t ic e  to  the members o f  the  c la s s  as con tem p la ted  by R u le  23 (c) ( 2 ) .

I say " f o r  th e  p re s e n t"  because  under R u le  23 (c )  (1) th e  o rd e r  o f  

s u b d iv is io n  o f  a c la s s  may be a lt e r e d  o r  amended b e fo re  the  d e c is io n  

on the  m e r it s .  My o rd e r has a p o s s ib le  in t e r im  s t a t u s .

The fo re g o in g  d i r e c t io n  as to  th e  c la s s  c o m p o s it io n  Involves no 
u n fa ir n e s s  o r  h a rd s h ip  upon anyone s in c e  the  scope o f  th e  class can 
be broadened i f  i t  sh ou ld  be found to  be too  much r e s t r i c t e d .  Other 

g r ie v a n c e s ,  a d d i t io n a l  p a r ty  p l a i n t i f f s  o r  ln t e r v e n o r s  a re  considerations 
w h ich  w ou ld  r e q u ir e  re -e x a m in a t io n  and r e a p p r a is a l  o f  my preliminary 
d e te rm in a t io n  and they a re  no t e x h a u s t iv e  o f  the  cau ses u n d e r ly in g  

p o s s ib le  subsequen t a l t e r a t io n  o f  t h i s  c la s s  d e f in i t i o n .

B e fo re  o r  a t  the  h e a r in g  on the  in ju n c t io n  p l a i n t i f f  w i l l  have 

o p p o r tu n it y  f o r  f a c t u a l d e m o n s tra t io n  o f  any e r r o r  in  my th in k in g  as 

to  the  c la s s  phase  and as to  my d e f in i t i o n  as o f  now o f  th e  c la s s  

re p re se n te d  by B a x te r .  I f  so co n v in ce d  o f  e r r o r ,  th e  ca se  w ou ld  p roceed  

w it'.i a b roadened c la s s  base .

In  th e  l i g h t  o f  th e se  o b s e rv a t io n s  and r u l in g s ,  th e  m o tion  to 

u is ' i s s  che c la s s  s u i t  i s  p a r t ly  s u s ta in e d  and p a r t ly  o v e r ru le d .

(5)



O IUECTIO NS CO I IJTKKHOf;ATOH ll'.S

A t th e  argum ent i t  was ag reed th a t  d e fe n d a n t 's  o b je c t io n s  to  

in t e r r o g a t o r ie s  7 - 1 1  w ere t ie d  in  w ith  th e  is s u e  con cern in g  id e n t i t y  

o f  the  c la s s .  r t  was suggested  by someone d u r in g  th e  h e a rin g  th a t  i f  

the  c la s s  was r e s t r i c t e d  as contended f o r  by d e fen d an t, the o b je c t io n s  

to  th e  in t e r r o g a t o r ie s  w ou ld  be w e l l  ta ken . T h is  i s  not c o r r e c t  in  the  

l i g h t  o f  th e  c o n d it io n a l  n a tu re  o f  my o rd e r  as to  c la s s  s p e c i f ic a t io n .

In  th e  I n t e r r o g a to r ie s  com p la in ed  o f  p l a i n t i f f  sought in fo rm a tio n  

as to  th e  number o f  Negroes employed in  the  main o f f i c e  o r  h ea d q u a rters; 

d a ta  as to  jo b  c l a s s i f i c a t io n s  and h o u r ly  com pensation ra te s  to g e th e r  

w ith  th e  number o f  Negroes employed in  each ; th e  number o f  s u p e rv is o ry  

Negro em p loyees, and the  names and d a te s  o f  employment o f  a l l  s u p e rv is o ry  

em ployees in  each jo b  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

Defendant o b je c te d  on the  g rounds , among o th o r s ,  th a t  q u e stio n s  

7 - 1 1  do n o t in v o lv e  the  s u b je c t  o f  c h a rg e s  w ith  o r  m ed iation  by the  

EFOC. They were a ls o  c h a lle n g e d  because  they seek c o n f id e n t ia l  b u s in e ss  

in fo rm a t io n .

P l a i n t i f f  a rgue s th a t  the  s u b je c t  m a tte r  o f  th e  a c t io n  ra th e r  than  

th e  le g a l  is s u e s  gove rn s  d i s c o v e r a b i l i t y .  See Patton  v . Southern B e l l  

T 6. C T e l.  C o . . 38 F .R .D . 428, 429 (N .D . Ga. 1965 ), c i t in g  Hickman V. 

T a y lo r . 329 U .S . 495 (1947 ); 4 M oore, F e d e ra l P r a c t ic e . 1 26. 15, p . 1171 

(2nd ed. 1967); U n ite d  S ta te s  v ,  Boano . 16 F .R .D . 379 (S.M. N .Y . 1954).

The " p r iv a t e  A t to rn e y  'e n e r a l"  co n ce p t o f  T i t l e  V II a c t io n s  

re n d e rs  a s u i t  l i k e  t h i s  " p e r fo r c e  a s o r t  o f  c la s s  a c t io n  f o r  fe llo w  

em ployees s im i l a r l y  s i t u a t e d " .  J e n k in s . 400 F .2 d  33. The p l a i n t i f f  

h e re  i s  e n t i t l e d  to  seek  an in ju n c t io n  to  p re v e n t fu tu re  d is c r im in a to ry  

p r a c t ic e s  by the  d e fend an t in  the  l i n e  o f  jo b  p ro g re s s io n  in  a l l  d e p a rt­

ments.. However, as I p r e v io u s ly  in d ic a te d ,  back pay awards o r  mandatory 

p ro m o tio n s  would be con £ : ned to the  p l a i n t i f f  h im s e lf  and the r e s t r ic t e d  

c la s s  he re p re s e n ts .

Ir. my o p in io n ,  th e  da ta  and in fo rm a t io n  sought in  the I n te r ro g a to r ie s  

i s  germane to  p l a i n t i f f ' s  r ig h t  g e n e r a l ly  to  e n jo in  s im i la r  d is c r im in s T  

t io n .  I t  i s  e q u a l ly  p e r t in e n t  to  h is  r ig h t  to  p erso n a l r e l i e f .  I f

(6) 7JU*



d is c r im in a t io n  i s  p r a c t ic e d  in  o th e r  o p e ra t in g  d epa rtm en ts , e v id e n ce  

th e re o f  w ou ld  p o in t  co i t s  e x is te n c e  in  th e  b o i l e r  room.

D e fendan t a ls o  o b je c t s  because  the I n te r ro g a to r ie s  com plained  

o f  seek d a ta  w h ich  c o n s t i t u t e  c o n f id e n t ia l  b u s in e ss  in fo rm a tio n .

In  r e f e r r in g  to  " p r iv i le g e d "  m a tte r  w h ich  would be beyond the reach  

o f  d is c o v e r y  R u le  33 appears to  e x c lu d e  o n ly  p ro fe s s io n a l communica­

t io n s ,  t ra d e  s e c re t s  and m a tte rs  o f  p u b l ic  in t e r e s t .

Commendably, p l a i n t i f f ' s  c o u n se l says th a t he does not w ish  to  

r e q u ir e  d is c lo s u r e  o f  c o n f id e n t ia l  in fo rm a tio n  which would be harm ful 

to  d e fe n d a n t 's  c o m p e t it iv e  p o s i t io n  in  the in d u s try . W h ile  I th in k  

th a t  the  o b je c t io n s  based on th e  ground th a t I n te r ro g a to r ie s  7 - 1 1  

r e q u ir e  r e v e la t io n  o f  c o n f id e n t ia l  b u s in e ss  in fo rm a tio n  are  w ithou t  

l e g a l  m e r it ,  I w i l l  e n t e r t a in  a proposed form o f  p ro te c t iv e  o rd e r  

l im i t i n g  the  scope o f  the answers. S u b ject to  t h is  su g g e stio n , 

p l a i n t i f f ' s  n o t io n  to  compel answers to  these I n te r ro g a to r ie s  i s  su s­

ta in e d  .

T h is  7 ‘ day o f  December, 1968.

< <>. .t". •/.
JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA



A D A M  B A X T E R ,

IN T H E  U N I T E D  S T A T E S  D I S T R I C T  C O U R T  
F O R  T H E  S O U T H E R N  D I S T R I C T  O F  G E O R G I A  

S A V A N N A H  D I V I § IO £  M S W fC S

icutbaru District ot 
riled In »ttloc

P la in t if f ,
Chief Deputy Clerk 

C I V I L  A C T I O N  N O . 2304

SA  / A N N A H  S U G A R  R E F I N I N G  C O R P O R A T I O N .

D e fondant.

A N S W E R

N O W  C O M E S  S a va n n ah  S u g a r R e fin in g  C o r p o r a t io n ,  D e fe n d a n t:

1.

D e fe n d a n t a d m its  the j u r is d ic t io n  o f  the C o u r t  and d e n ie s  a l l  o th e r  

a lle g a t io n s  c o n ta in e d  in  P a r a g r a p h  I o f  the C o m p la in t .

2.

D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  the a lle g a t io n s  c o n ta in e d  in  P a r a g r a p h  II o f  the 

C o m p la in t .  B y  w ay  o f  fu r th e r  a n s w e r  to the a lle g a t io n s  c o n ta in e d  in  P a r a ­

g ra p h  II, D e fe n d a n t a n s w e rs  that an in te rv e n in g  O r d e r  o f  the C o u r t  d a te d  

D e c e m b e r  9, 1968 h a s d e fin e d  the " c la s s  w h ic h  P la in t i f f  r e p r e s e n t s "  a s  

th ose  e m p lo y e e s  e m p lo y e d  in  the B o i le r  R o o m  and that the P la in t i f f  o n ly  

has s ta n d in g  to b r in g  th is  a c t io n  b e fo re  th is  C o u r t  on th o se  m a t t e r s  w h ic h  

w e re  r a is e d  in  the P la in t i f f 's  c h a rg e  f ile d  w ith  the E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t  

O p p o rtu n ity  C o m m is s io n .

3,

D e fe n d a n t a d m its  tha< th is  is  a p ro c e e d in g  fo r a D e c la r a t o r y  Ju d g e -  

i as to the P la in t i f f 's  r ig h ts  fo r an in ju n c t io n ; h o w e v e r . D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  

tt-. re m a in in g  a lle g a t io n s  of P a r a g r a p h  III. F u r t h e r ,  D e fe n d a n t a n s w e rs  that 

the P la in t i f f  is  o n ly  e n t it le d  to r a is e  th o se  m a t t e r s  w h ic h  w er^  r a is e d  in  

P la in  : . f f 's  c h a rg e  f ile d  w ith  the E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  C o m m is s io n  

p r L  • ;l,e in s t itu t io n  o f  th is  a c t io n . AIJ o th e r  a lle g a t io n s  o f  d is c r im in a t io n

lie,

— L* !



P a g e  -2 -

a re  not o n ly  vag ue  and c o n c lu s io n a r y  in  n a tu re  but, fu r th e r ,  the P la in t i f f  has  

no s ta n d in g  to r a is e  th e se  o th e r  a lle g a t io n s ,  t h e r e fo re  D e fe n d a n t 's  A n s w e r  

is  t a i lo r e d  in  a c c o r d a n c e  w ith  the O r d e r  o f  th is  C o u r t  d a ted  D e c e m b e r  9. 1968.

4.

D e fe n d a n t a d m its  that the P la in t i f f .  A d a m  B a x t e r ,  is  a c it iz e n  o f  

the U n ite d  S ta te s , r e s id in g  in  S a va n n ah , G e o r g ia  and that the P la in t i f f  is  

p r e s e n t ly  e m p lo y e d  by  the D e fe n d a n t. D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  the re m a in in g  

a lle g a t io n s  o f  P a r a g r a p h  I V .

D e fe n d a n t a d m its  the a lle g a t io n s  o f  P a r a g r a p h  V  o f  the C o m p la in t .

6.

D e fe n d a n t a d m its  the a lle g a t io n s  c o n ta in e d  in  the f i r s t  s e n te n ce  o f  

P a r a g r a p h  V I . D e fe n d a n t a ls o  a d m its  that s e n io r it y  d o e s  p la y  a p a r t  in  

d e te r m in in g  p ro m o t io n s  and la y o f fs ;  h o w e v e r , D e fe n d a n t e m p h a s iz e s  that 

s e n io r it y  is  m e r e ly  one o f  the s ta n d a rd s  o r  g u id e lin e s  u se d  in  d e te r m in in g  

p ro m o t io n s  and la y o f f s .  F u r t h e r ,  w h ile  it  is  a d m itte d  that in  c e r t a in  a r e a s  

o r  d e p a rtm e n ts  th e re  a re  the c la s s i f i c a t io n s  o f  O p e r a t o r s  and O p e r a t o r - H e lp e r s ,  

and that in  th o se  d e p a rtm e n ts  w h e re  th e re  a r e  O p e r a t o r - H e lp e r s  and R e l ie f  

O p e r a t o r - H e lp e r s  th e se  c la s s i f ic a t io n s  o fte n  do a s s is t  the O p e r a t o r s ,

D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  the R e l ie f  O p e r a t o r - H e lp e r s  a re  the lo w e s t  p a id  o f  the th re e  

c la s s i f i c a t io n s .  D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  the re m a in in g  a lle g a t io n s  o f  P a r a g r a p h  V I .

7.

D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  the a lle g a t io n s  o f  P a r a g r a p h  V II o f  the C o m p la in t .

8.

D e fe n d a n t a d m its  that the P la in t i f f  d o e s  w o rk  a s  a R e l ie f  O p e r a to r  - 

H e lp o r  ill th. C o m p a n y 's  B o i le r  R o o m ; h o w e v e r, the D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  the 

re m a ir .in g  a lle g a t io n s  o f  P a r a g r a p h  VIII.



P a g e  -3 -

D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  the a lle g a t io n s  o f  P a r a g r a p h  I X , X  and X I .

F u r t h e r ,  D e fe n d a n t a n s w e rs  that the P la in t i f f  is  o n ly  e n t it le d  to r a is e

th ose  m a t te r s  w h ic h  the P la in t i f f  has p r o p e r ly  r a is e d  in  P la in t i f f 's  C h a rg e  ■ 

f ile d  w ith the E<|ual E m p lo y m e n t  O p p o rtu n ity  C o m m is s io n  p r io r  to the in s t i ­

tu tio n  o f th is  a c t io n . In an  in t e r im  O r d e r  o f  th is  C o u r t  d ated  D e c e m b e r  9, 

1968, the C o u r t  h a s l im ite d  the c la s s  and c a u s e  o f  a c t io n  th a t the P la in t i f f  

h a s sta n d in g  to b r in g  b e fo re  th is  C o u r t  and , t h e r e fo r e ,  D e fe n d a n t 's  A n s w e r  

is  t a i lo r e d  a c c o r d in g ly  in  o 'd e r  to p r o p e r ly  f ra m e  the is s u e s  now  p en d in g  

b e fo re  th is  C o u r t .

In a n s w e r  to P a r a g r a p h  XII o f  the C o m p la in t ,  the D e fe n d a n t a d m its  

the a lle g a t io n s  c o n ta in e d  in  S u b -p a r a g r a p h s  A  and B  o f  P a r a g r a p h  XII; h o w e v e r, 

the D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  that it  d e n ie d  a n y  r ig h t  g ra n te d  to the P la in t i f f  b y  the

p r o v is io n s  o f  T i t le  42, U . S . C . , S e c . 2000(e).

11 .

D e fe n d a n t d e n ie s  the a lle g a t io n s  o f  P a r a g r a p h  XIII o f  the C o m p la in f .

W H E R E F O R E ,  h a v in g  fu lly  a n s w e re d . D e fe n d a n t p r a y s  that the 

C o m p la in t  be d is m is s e d ,  w ith  a l l  c o s t  to  be b o rn e  by P la in t i f f s .

10.

R e s p e c t fu lly  su b m itte d ,

CONSTANGY A PROWELL

BITCH, MILLER, BECKMANN & SIMPSON

b**___ / V
I • .’jv-cl f »r all 

phiw Iit'K  b y
» proper*



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
)'OU THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT KEOBSTHICT COURT

Southern District of SAVANNAH DIVISION m o d  In stria*

ADAK BAXTER,
Plaintiff,

.... «gk
JsT'Dsputr Clerk

vs.
SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION,

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 
No. 2304

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE ORDER OF DECEMBER 9. 
1968 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO CERTIFY QUESTION FOR 

PURPOSE OF AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL-- ------

Comes now the plaintiff by his undersigned attorney and 
moves the court, pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to alter or amend the order of this court 
entered in this action on December 9, 1968, insofar as the said
order adjudged that this action may be maintained only as a 
class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure on the grounds that:

1. This action is a proper class action under Rule 
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as alleged in 
plaintiff's complaint (Paragraph II).

2. No notice is required in class actions brought under 
Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 
this court should not read the mandatory notice requirement in 
class actions brought under Rule 23(b)(3) into actions brought 
under 23(b)(2).

3. If the court remains of the opinion that the instant 
case is not one falling under 23(b)(2) and denies this motion, 
plaintiff respectfully requests the court to certify the question 
for purposes of appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.. §1292(b). The

77a



I

question heroin involves a eontrolling question of law and an 
appeal from an order denying this motion may materially advance 
the ultimate termination of this case.

4. Plaintiff further moves for an order staying so much 
of the order of December 9, 1968 which requires counsel for 
plaintiff to prepare a form of notice and suggestion of the 
manner for giving same until the court has disposed of this 
motion.

5. Plaintiff attaches herewith a copy of the memorandum 
of law filed in Hayes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company.
C.A. No. 2371, in which che same motion has been made and briefed.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays the court to alter 
or amend its order to designate this action as a proper 23(b)(2) 
class action or in the alternative to certify the question for 
purposes of an interlocutory appeal.

This day of December 1968.

Respectfully submitted.

Bobby L. Hill
458^ West Broad Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

Jack Greenberg 
Robert Belton 
Gabrielle A. Kirk

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

/ i a



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH DIVISION

LORENZO HAYES, et al..
Plaintiffs,

vs.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, et al.,

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION 
No. 2371

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF 
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND

IIntroduction
Plaintiffs brought this action on their own behalf and 

on behalf of other Negro persons similarly situated pursuant to 
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs 
seek to maintain this action as a class action under subdivision
(b)(2) of Rule 23^/. Although the Company did not challenge 
the appropriateness of plaintiffs proceeding with this action 
under subdivision (b)(2) of Rule 23, the court in its opinion 
and order of December 9, 1968, held that a class action (the 
court having defined the class) under Rule 23 may be maintained 
in this Title VII case but stated that the action falls under 
subdivision (b)(3). The court then concluded that as a (b)(3) 
action it would be proper for the court to comply initially with

^_/ Plaintiffs alleged in Paragraph II of their complaint that 
"Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on 
behalf of other persons similarly situated pursuant to 
Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The 
class which plaintiffs represent is composed of persons who 
have been denied or who in the future will be denied equal 
employment opportunities by defendants on the ground of their 
race or color. (Defendants have acted on grounds generally 
applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final 
injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with 
respect to the class as a whole.]"

7/n



the mandatory notice provision of subdivision 23(c)(2).
Pursuant to the December 9, 1908 opinion the court ordered 
counsel for plaintiffs to prepare a form of notice to be given 
to the members of the class and to state the manner in which 
said notice should be given, and that the same be presented to 
the court for its consideration. Since different consequences 
flow from an action brought as a class action under (b) (2) 
than that which flow from a class action brought under (b)(3), 
it is respectfully submitted that the allegations in the instant 
complaint having set forth and met the requirements of (b)(2), 
this court should alter and amend its order and opinion of 
December 9, 1968 designating this action as a class action under 
(b) (2).

II
This Action is Properly a Class 
Action under Rule 23(b)(2) of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Pro­cedure.

Plaintiffs seek to bring this action under Rule 23(b)(2). 
The requirements of Rule 23(a) have been set out, as well as 
the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Rule 23(a) and (b) (as 
amended effective July 1, 1966), set forth the requirements for 
bringing a class action. The basic requirements of Rule 23(a)

(1) sizeable class, (2) common questions of law or fact,
(3) claims typical of class presented by plaintiffs and,
(4) adequate representation of class by plaintiffs —  all are 
duly alleged by plaintiffs'(Complaint, Para. II) and are 
obviously met. We do not understand the court nor the company 
to question plaintiffs' credentials regarding any of these 
requirements.

The special requirements set forth in Rule 23(b) are 
also met by plaintiffs. Rule 23(b) sets forth three special

t t

- 2 -



I

situations, any one of which will justify a class action.
Plaintiffs seek to maintain this class action under subdivision

(
(b)(2) of Rule 23 which requires that:

"the party opposing the class has 
acted or refused to act on grounds 
generally applicable to the class, 
thereby making appropriate final 
injunctive relief or corresponding
declaratory relief with respect to Ithe class as a whole."

Plaintiffs' action does not merely fall under subdivision (b)(2). 
Rather plaintiffs' action is the model which (b)(2) was designed 
to include. The comment of the advisory committee which prepared 
the new Rule 23 makes this crystal clear.

"Subdivision (b)(2). «iis subdivision is intended to reach situations where a 
party has taken action or refused to take 
action with respect to a class, and final 
relief of an injunctive nature or of a cor­
responding declaratory nature, settling 
the legality of the bahavior with respect 
to the class as a whole, is appropriate.
Declaratory relief 'corresponds' to in­
junctive relief when as a practical matter 
it affords injunctive relief or serves as 
a basis for later injunctive relief. The 
subdivision does not extend to cases in 
which the appropriate final relief relates 
exclusively or predominantly to money damages.Action or inaction is directed to a class 
within the meaning of this subdivision even if it has taken effect or is threatened 
only as to one or a few members of the class, provided it is based on grounds which have general application to the class.

Illustrative are various actions in the civil-ricfhts field where a party is 
charged with discriminating unlawfully 
against a class, usually one whose members 
are incapable of specific enumeration."
Advisory Committee Note to amended Rule 23,
86 Sup. Ct. No. 11, Yellow Supp. at 34 
(1966) (reprinted in 28 U.S.C.A., F.R.C.P.
17-33 following Rule 23) (emphasis added)

Plaintiffs so abundantly meet all of the requirements of 
Rule 23(b)(2) that plaintiffs' credentials under the Rule could 
not seriously be challenged. As we understand the court's

n

-3-



opinion of December 9, 1968, it does not question whether 
plaintiffs meet the requirements of Rule 23 but rather suggests 
that this action be maintained only under subsection (b)(3) 
of Revised Rule 23.

It is instructive to note that this court in striking 
the Company's demand for a jury trial as to plaintiffs' prayer 
for back pay observed that if it erred in disallowing the demand 
for a jury trial "higher courts will soon begin to inform me." 
Opinion and Order of December 9, 1968, pp. 5-6. In keeping with 
this court's concern for guidance from the "higher courts", 
plaintiffs submit that the court is not without guidance from 
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as to the proper subdivision 
of Rule 23 under which this case should be maintained as a class 
action.

In Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Coro.. 398 F.2d 496 (5th 
Cir. 1968) the Court, in deciding whether membership in a class 
action brought under section 706(3) of Title VII is restricted 
to individuals who have filed charges with EEOC, stated at p. 499:

"We thus hold that a class action is
permissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 within the following limits. First, 
the class action must, as it does here, meet
the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b) (2)." 
(Footnote omitted) •(Emphasis supplied)

Were there any doubt after Oatis as to the proper 
subdivision of Rule 23 under which this class action should be 
maintained, it can be held it has now been laid to rest. In 
Jenkins v. United Gas Corp.. 400 F.2d 28 (5th Cir. 1968), 
the Fifth Circuit had before it a case (likewise brought under 
Title VII) which involved the applicability of class action 
treatment of Title VII cases. In reversing the dismissal of a 
class action brought under Title VII the Court, in Jenkins, 
stated:

4



“To fi&tjg wc need only add a few comments. The holding that the nature of the claims asserted make it a 23(b)(2) class action was expressly 
recognized in the Advisory Committee's Note.
And the Note's emphasis on declaratory, injunctive 
relief is easily satisfied by Title VIZ. See 
s 706(g). 42 U.S.C.A. $ 2000e-5(g)." (Footnotes omitted)

Other district courts, in deciding the subdivision of
Rule 23 under Title VII class action cases will be, have
similarly reached the same conclusion as did the Fifth Circuit
in Oatis. supra, and Jenkins, supra. "The court is of the
opinion that the requirements have been met by plaintiffs in
all the conditions of Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2)." Banks v.
Lockhced-Georgia Co.. 58 f9131 (N.D. Ga. June 12, 1968) "The
class action (under Title VII] must meet the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and (b)(2)." King v. Georgia Power Co.. 58 h C

,19150 (N.D. Ga. August 13, 1968). "That this action is not 
I •maintainable under Rule 23(b)(3) . . . ." (emphasis supplied).
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.. 56LC 19091 (H.D.N.C. June 19, 1967).
See also Bowe v. Colgate, 272 F.Supp. 332 (S.D. Ind. 1967);
Quarles v. Philip Morris Inc., 56 LC 19092 (E.D. Va.
September 26, 1966); Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Cg..
58 LC 19147 (E.D. Ark. July 19, 1968);Mondv v. Crown Zellerbach.
271 F.Supp. 258 (E.D. La. 1967), reversed in part on other
grounds sum nom. Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach. 398 F.2d 498.

The court seems to have placed great reliance on the case
of Hardy v. United States Steel Corporation. 56 &C 19087 (N.D.
Ala. August 2, 1967) 67 LRRM 2505.J/ In Hardv. the judge there
held that the several Title VII cases then pending before him
could only be maintained as class actions under 23(b)(3). Of
all the Title VII cases which have come to the attention of

See the opinion of this court in Baxter v. Savannah Sugar 
Refining C';rp. , C.A. No. 2304 (S.D. Ga. December 9, 1968)

j
-5-



of c o u m v l for pJ.ijnl i ff ll.ir»ly .stands alone in bolding that a 
class action under Title VII can be maintained only under 
23(b)(3). Although this court has correctly observed that 
no appeal was taken in Hardy, the authority of Hardy - if ever 
it could have been considered as authority - as establishing 
that class actions under Title VII can be maintained only under 
23(b)(3) has been completely eroded in light of the rifth 
Circuit opinions in Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach. supra, and 
Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., supra, both decided after Hardy. 
Oatis was decided in July. 1968 and Jenkins was decided in 
August. 1968.

Ill
No Notice to other Class Members is 
Required in 23(b)(2) Class Actions 
and the Court Should not Require 
Notice Be Given to Members of the 
Class in This Case at This Time.

The court suggests upon finding this action may be
maintained as a class action that the court has a duty to
initially comply with the notice provision pursuant to Rule
23(c)(2). Plaintiffs submit that this conclusion by the court
misconceives the meaning and import of the notice requirement
of Rule 23(c)(2). and moreover, would create an absurd and
unintended result in this case if notice were required to be
given to other members of the class'̂ -

As the court properly recognizes. Rule 23(c)(2) requires
notice only in the case of class actions "maintained under
subdivision (b)(3)." This is a reference back to the three
subdivisions, (b)(1). (b)(2) and (b)(3). which describe the
limited situations under which a party may maintain a class
action. As indicated earlier, this is not an action maintained

N



under subdivision (b)(3). it is an action being Maintained 
under subdivision (b)(2) and there is no justification for
treating it as a (b)(3) action. The choice of the subdivision 
under which to maintain an action is that of the class 
representative, not that of the opposing party. And the fact 

that this action may technically meet the requirements of
(b) (3) does not deprive the class representative of his choice.

The first point to be noted is the importance placed on 
the word "maintain" and on the discretion of the class repre­

sentative throughout Rule 23. Subdivision (a) provides that 
a party "may" sue as a class representative. Subdivision (b) 
provides that any action "may be maintained" as a class action 
if the party can bring himself within (b)(1), (b)(2) or (b)(3). 
Subdivision (c) (2) requires notice if the action is one 
"maintained" under (b)(3). The thrust of this pattern is that 
the choice of a class action and the type of class action is 
left to the discretion of the party representing the class.

This party may decide not to "maintain” a class action at all 

and he may decide under which subdivision to "maintain" his 

action if he chooses a class action. Zf the class represent­
ative were not to have such discretion, then the continued use 
of the terms "may" and "maintain" would have been inappropriate. 
Thus, for example, the rule could have provided in subdivision
(c) (2) that notice would be required whenever certain features 

of (b)(3) exist. But the rule does not so provide —  it 
provides that notice is required if. and only if. the action

7



is affirmatively "maintained under (b)(3).;/
Further examination of the purposes underlying Rule 23

establishes the soundness of permitting a party to choose
whether or not he wishes to maintain an action under (b)(3).
The Advisory Committee pointed out that subdivision (b)(3)
was designed to deal with situations where:

*. . . class action treatment is not as 
clearly called for as in . . . {(b)(1) 
or (b)(2) situations) but it may never­
theless be convenient and desirable 
depending upon the particular facts."
Advisory Committee Note to amended Rule 
23, 86 Sup. Ct. No. 11, Yellow Supp. at 
34, 1966 (reprinted in 28 U.S.C.A.,
F.R.C.P. 17-33, following Rule 33).

In such borderline situations, the Advisory Committee noted
that it was necessary to very carefully balance the somewhat
uncertain benefits to be obtained from a class action against
the risks of ’’procedural unfairness or other undesirable
results."♦»/ Quite obviously, the use of (b)(3) had to be
clearly circumscribed and the procedural guarantees made much
more rigid than in classic (b)(1) and (b)(2) cases where the
appropriateness of class action was much clearer. Hence, the
special notice requirement in (c)(2) for (b)(3) actions.

Plaintiffs' right to maintain a class action does not
depend upon meeting the borderline requirements of (b)(3).
Plaintiffs' action, as indicated above, falls within the heart

Rule 23(c)(2) provides:
"In any class action maintained under subdivision 

(b)(3), the court shall direct to the members of the 
class the best notice practicable under the circum­
stances, including individual notice to all members 
who can be identified through reasonable effort.
The notice shall advise each member that (A) the 
court will exclude him from the class if he so 
requests by a specified date; (B) the judgment, 
whether favorable or not, will include all members 
who do not request exclusion; and (C) any member 
who does not request exclusion may, if he desires, 
enter an appearance through his counsel."

Advisory Committee Note to amended Rule 23, 86 Sup. Ct.
No. 11, Yellow Supp. at 34-35 (1966).

%  a



of (b)(2) and in face is the model (b)(2) case. It is quite 
obvious that most other (b)(i) and (b)(2) cases will also 
technically fall within the scope of (b)(3) since any provision 
which is drav.r. broadly enough to reach out to situations at 
the borderline, such as (b)(3), will necessarily tend to 
include.situations at the heart of the area. But this is no 
reason for applying the special notice requirements formulated 
for borderline cases to all cases.

The application of the special notice requirement to all 
cases technically falling within (b)(3) would lead to absurd 
results. First, as indicated above, it would in effect convert 
the special notice requirement to a general notice requirement 
since virtually all (b)(1) and (b) (2) cases will also meet the 
requirements of (b)(3). Second, it would deprive parties of 
the right to bring a class action on behalf of members to whom 
notice cannot be sent. This deprivation would occur because 
subdivision (c)(3) provides that while a judgment in a (b)(1) 
or a (b)(2) action "shall include and describe" all members of 
the class, a judgment in a (b)(3) action includes only those 
to whom notice has been directed. In any action based on racial 
discrimination the class, which typically includes thousands of 
members, is obviously too broad for meaningful notice to be 
feasible. The Advisory Committee Note expressly recognizes that 
the members of the class in an action based on racial dis­
crimination usually "are incapable of specific enumeration.
The Advisory Committee Note also indicates that (b)(2) was 
designed to cover situations outside the civil rights field

J/ Id.at 34.

-9-

* 7 a



where class members were incapable of specific enumeration -- 
for example, an action by a broad group of purchasers against 
a seller for illegal discriminatory pricing. ± /  In all of these 
(b)(2) cases, the clear intent of the Rule is to permit the 
judgment of the court to include class members who could not 
even be given direct notice. * * /  The Advisory Committee Note 
emphasizes this point by stating that the judgment in a (b)(2> 
action (and in a (b)(1) action) should describe the class but 
need not specify individual members. The intent to include 
unspecified members would be frustrated if the absurd result 
were reached of requiring special notice under (c)(2) in all 
cases and thereby limiting the judgment under (c)(3) to only 
class members who were notified.

Although mandatory notice pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2) is 
thus not required in the instant case, this court is, of course 
not precluded from giving notice. Rule 23(d)(2) gives a court 
discretion to give notice to some class members at any time 
such notice is felt appropriate for the fair conduct of the 
action. Plaintiffs do not believe that notice to other class 
members is necessary or appropriate at the present time. The 
general question of defendants* discriminatory practices, which 
is the common question of law and fact in this case, can be 
more easily dealt with if the court limits its attention to a 
selected group of representative fact situations rather than 
attempt to include a multiplicity of confusing factual claims. 
The inclusion of additional class members is lifcely to generate 
only confusion, which will be helpful to defendants, but not 
to the court or to the administration of justice.

U  Ibid.
*J*_/ at p. 35.

%io
- 10 -



If, or. the other hand, this court finds that sump limited 
notice to class members is appropriate it must be recognized 
that the sole purpose of this notice is "for the protection of 
the members of the class or otherwise for the fair conduct of 
the action."£/ The only reported Title VII case in Which the 
question of whether notice to the members of class should be 
given is Griggs v. Duke Power. 56 LC 59091 (M.D.N.C. June 19, 
1967). In Griggs, the court in concluding that the class action 
was a (b)(2) action, held that it was unnecessary to provide 
notice to members of the class represented by the plaintiffs. 
cf. Snyder v. Board of Trustees. 286 F.Supp. 927, 931 (N,D.
111. 1968), 12 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 23b. 3, Case 9.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiffs submit 

that the order of the court of December 9, 1968 should be 
altered and amended on the ground that this action is properly 
a Rule 23(b)(2) action and not a Rule 23(b)(3) action as 
designated by the Opinion of the court.

 ̂ Respectfully submitted.

Bobby L. Hill
458*s West Broad Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

Jack Greenberg 
Robert Belton Gabrielle A. Kirk

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

December 1968

±/ Id. ,t 39.



IN i HE UN IT ED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR 'IHE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA _ _ _SOUTHERN DIVISION U. *• DISTRICT COURT— ------------------------------- Southern District of

F i le d  in  o f f ic e

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff,

-v -
SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING
CORPORATION,

Defendant.

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

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR FILING ANSWERS 
______TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES

Upon request and good cause shown, the time for 
answering plaintiff’s Interrogatories is extended through 
January 10, 1969.

DATED: December 23, 1968.

// /---------- -----+ -ft--- r  -i -—-U. S. District Court Judge, E.J.C. ofA

Georgia

9oc



UNITED STATE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER,

P i a i  n t i f f

U. S . DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT COURT Southern District of Ca.

FI!-a in office

C h ief Deputy C lerli

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304
SAVANNAH SUGAR 
CORPORATION,

REFINING

I). • f <•11(1,1 n l

AMENDMENT 'DO PREVIOUS ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES AND 
ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PURSUANT TO ORDER OF COURT 
_______________ DATED DECEMBER 9, 1968________________

DEFENDANT, savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, by

Robert Penn Giles, Assistant Vice President, amends the answer 
to Interrogatory ^5, which contained information that was inad­
vertently incorrect, and further answers those Interrogatores 
served on the Corporation by Plaintiff on June 24, 1968, which 
Interrogatories were the sublect of an Order of Court, dated 
December 9, 1968.

AMENDMENT TO ANSWER 
TO INTERROGATORY 5

(a) As of June 30, 1968:

Total 617

No. of Negroes 331

(b) As of July 2, 1966:

Tota1 668

No. of Negroes 370

• ’ As of Inly 2, 1966;

Total fe44

.c . ■ Negroes 346

//



( d )  A s o f  .T u ly  2 .  1 0 6 7 :

T o t a l 6 3  5

N o .  o f  N e g r o e s 3 4 6

This error wan caused by reason of the fact that there
at<- m a n a g e r i a l  and p r o f e s s i o n a l  p e r s o n n e l ,  who for practical 
purpo: c : . , r e c e i v e  t h e i r  p a y c h e c k s  f r o m  t h e  hom e o f f i c e ,  b u t  who 
w o r k  e l s e w h e r e .

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY 7

(a) As of July 2, 196b:
Total
No. of Negroes

(b) Ar of July 2, 1966:
Total
No. of Negroes;

(e) As of July 2, 1967: 
Total
No. of Negroes 

(d) As of June 30, 1968: 
Tota 1
No. of Negroes

93

2

95
2

96 
2

9 8

2

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY 8

( S e e  f o l l o w i r g  p a g e s  o f  Xeroxed material)



■£_jL

.6.
JCib

I ' <C* ,

v 7 o 3  C^/?ssjr/c/)T/osJ_ - H n c  | Wcau-V-OK.-
| -rors/s, 

o,-
tZnyy.ft'jcsr*

1 Nu*mzc*
orl M r < j * o  i &iM.oy/-/rz

| _

J~£OC,JZCS . v 5 , 7 > - ' 7 - / O V  42ZeZA//?yJ _ / J / .  / / _  
J1-7.Z2 „

_j0 —. : v y ^ < 7 / ? / L
_

4 _ ^ _ P
Y&£7> -fZ/z-JZAJ&sJ So _ _ _ _ / O

J =>L*}M7‘ _J?£X,S£/=- . lo  J J o J O%H #
- 2 X 4 -

Z.S7

/ O"  " / o# #  *
Z.4& / 0

-  . ... W/Ji'/L.. vSi/^z?^ >S/?/47>2£/2.
;
~U.C3*2Z- / 0

. 073£##r:ofr 2.43 7 7 t
X / ? / /  * 7 u /̂9a  ~Boy 4 (/.TJ/j/ry -JL o Z / o

/, «  "  * 2.2 a Z z1j|
— Z J S L

z .r o
_ .  / ■ / —

- -  +Sv<f/bC'S _ 07>£m t o ^ J 0'

z .4 £ / < •
l .

.[FfZSSZ fZooCr L/.T.*b/T/ Z .3 2 2 3
/4/,rĵ *L. ~7of> . 2. g , 5 * J 2  '

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ / c V A « 5 e -  ~Pu 4*’&C~ _ 2  ' 3 .
*3u$/7jc*. TZtjsy&Z. ( +JM/rE Sui*?4) 2  4  JT
GjCAMUt'&TOC, _  (sPCCf) 7~0/Cf _ _ J . ^ 5 * 2 0

Me t  S o x ^ v j 2<2l . i .
..’ ■ -  _JZs?4. / Z o o / i  -/odl£/4f)y/. -12.4,2o„ 7. n
. '7~//ex/7<//*;<;- hr. . ; J « .  /Zooiz. C/S'E^C- >.2L 2L Qj CjPO. /7.O0JC. Srĉ /.SAJ.-/ *Su<i‘MS . . sntJioK. / ^ m v ' . r  Orzjtutrô . 2 .72- Z Of3jc.-n. « 5>£.ov)j./ry -Suf*** 

. TfaC/ifl <ySA/G -  L  OTJJCt>70E. 22,/ G 0'  f  £7>£&j/>AtTy ûOs»c£
3?c/i/9</yAJ<̂ „-_LL<r/J>/Xy._ 0*iJU.>27&&c _ _ 2 .4 ' z o

— / > / . —  G?‘u.wrct^ 24-.C. z
" -  tJ)C> O7-/X.S9T0.c . 2.4-0 Si

~  J ^ A  Or£X»>voyQ~ • z .s y z
1*# 6

-  / < i u _ _ > . 5 3
~ ti. iSj/- 7 7 ; i / i j z r / i .  Oj.Trtrasl. >.?2 

2. >2
/£> 1_ _ / o^  \ tA*M**r'/p &£j*tzjr o ^ / V V . / C 4 >... . yrs/r̂ JLi .  '&QS.CJC., J / / o  Or/:G.f . 41 —



S i \ /

Uo'Ji fTri-t:

-------//î /7-/̂ ’ /2vs3?jecs, '//g

Ku rtz -
Wtl-/■/.'/ 
-oc- '

7 Zrs/s. j
V « V « .’ : Cor
! Ej-ina'/z/rc

_  Ĉ 'jrĵ sẑ Sj UTrjs 7>s:csTo£g. —

_.S tj-MMOi.__ £«*£&*£.________________

.  £ s?/A>_ Crttz. jGTxjsc*_ _ _ _
.  r-* Ast=r

lit Qurs> ̂ Su$rJtk^o6XJze~_.

.  VJatTf. ______________ _________
J Ccjts/ _____
_sS?Avr̂ > rifi.t/-ijXstid2£î M0Ji--̂ Xkst4TaiaC-

_jlo.X4S. 

jut&ji- 

y .35  

_ J & £ L  

— %JJL 

___ -y-xL

js d r .

> - t L

i

J?S&#3.St̂ _S4sc4e44&_£7fr*itf,„ Q&SMZU&

ASj&I?JBR0jOAI------ (Loula/.T̂ SXU.

}&SYE*a??i?_$SZa^£zr-JB9?>43e~ Snertqjs
!

5C_______ '___________________ •

--- &'T&e>e /$. ™j£'/___±lu£&eajo <c.
_____  /?*J*9 A y s / S 7~__________________ ___

_ ? 4 0 .

J k J 3 -

7.4*}

jL6*l

-&jZ/a/jzgz:jM<}__4kf/.4..Z2&#ZZ-

Al/-?3 /"^Ct_
-/2̂ 7T.__jX//^M^7T£XL
J7r/£T. ._C,f/£UL4£KSjC._

_Xxszzjrrr. *zy____

J 2 £ i3& -

J9/.J>0.

_JJZ.CO_

jLCuLJZ.GL
jlo .? ,.F .q>- 

.  _ / e A . 6 . o _  

lo/Jko..

Ct-£.x*?r- „/!-y&#ZL.

S'X---..$*/.j'&ZrtZj&tCllZ-

/■'Jf>U'___C'A&yc__...

u a / ’A oJ

/& /-.60 .,

M .J O -

___ 9A lo

-73.

_ J _ _

-Z 0 _

, o f m//ere,no
JS’MNMiXKa

_ _ 7.3.

~s

J 3 ~  

_ ^ L  

— .£■

J -

JZ -

_ /_

JL

_ / _

J - .

_CL
0

-* ? -

j i —

_0 _

J 0 _ .



—  „  | KtrrlT  -
"/Tr/jjz j W nr.j-/,•/ 

j - o c -
— /';>•'.• r v  * v?M-/r -  i tJ o u e* '/

‘ 7*■//?£» 
j M>r:tctx ; o r  
i OtfW/CtS.

• /JlU
o ri /Jc<ic.a 

;\ & rr,u/ca1 1
--------------------------------------j /4 & .4 I 4 — 0 —  

0.. . j C J za£&z /?/£//?*/ . _ tMi  j ,
* 1

'J Z ^ sj^ u n /yrr. xS upjejcx& qc, J>4.3& ___/
......* in»

O
. . ’S o /jjc a .. 7?COM Q?>££s?TOC, * .7 7 J. O

.S c/a£  " 4 t .y ;  A /rrjt& c •J.*2 P 2A'- O — CrO
C oy -  JZ&//0& /&.SA/ ?-J>  70. Ti?*' 4 Z

."  '  -  /'fc& sjex/a. J'.// / / Q

— " * -  rift*//*,g. /7 j .',-j / j> J > 4  -& '?.&% 4 Q

- !. /lE atJM l o  - J^ryx^/L. 7 .4 4  -k 7.T9 r< l / /
i O jAL-./Z-. i ^ .J7i • .
Lf-s**/- S x /^ srp  4  U a/£JC/Uj £TD r — ;

1 7". >.? t4  > .-« • 7 Zi
\4Tj-£ 0T/0 i CJS?aJ  -  ^j£^/OA£

!
2 a

-------------------------------------g j.& 2 r £ i <£/#*/ -  ZTujj/ o/q, ! r . 6 2 2 0
“ - -  -  / / iS « S Z i

i -  
1 .̂/£> / /

* + .4 S / 0
i #i • /

■..." ,
/ :

i • • I
1 •' " ......................1
i
' !j
!

_Z5za^ «s_____________ L J / ?1

Z . / Z ,&&
! •* •* V O I / 0 /O  '

' ___.Vor/fA, . , _ ___c s — i 4 9 -1- it 1, ■ -1 !■) «*• — —.. r 
1

!
C/Zsurjj 7 ~Ztm>A 1 a J J L A  :

|
I
i

1  !
■

j ! !
. »j |

i . . .  i



/
------- ^  ,A -  : ■ './..u  ;a

. ... . dAsizus?/c/tr/os/ /Tr /̂Z
i Km ::- i r « r / / / .  j /fu/wcsi 
1 tJu/y ‘ c/l. > . 0 / -
j ,,  7 ” i ' & /" '  } /& # « «
1 r ' *''r -'* 7 ♦ £ ^ « y / 7  J7 * /  / »y-

----- :

T^ocz^s.. £Sr^?r/.oA_ I 7 /  '■ / O '  n
--  -------------- O  - >w _ j  /3 /7 /Z <?

1!
\ /  —.;/?£Z> t-o^zS'7Z</ j / > / .  9o / o !

_____ . Pit./'.vT’ /i£f=d,/-=V=* \_JL/3-3o / o
1

\ ■
// *

>■73 / o
// // i

i ^ .7 ^ _ / o . f

i // u
2i«r ? / 0

',&/>•/ 'S.s/tfPJj&o
*------------ ' —

o
7h'/ A Qj02>.'J± OriJZ/'/TPtO I .; s '.J 'y L r

,J2s?y/ S u1a?/Z ~Bi>X iy L/r/^/ry ->.4> $
i
! 2S-

•

i /• . ## . >3£> l /
— »

1 . ■ ■1 •
v

O’U4/5.<̂ _ZZ>A/££*■ (/Zee/oL / • /  .
j

__________ Z/<pua> iSl/jtf*z&__GyD&esiraJ2, V.S9 O

—  ■// -‘ 7*0 J2f) 7-D̂Z JTZxSS Or&ZjVTZU*. *y.s4- 4
t*

r i ’/zzs rLoaz, Ctr/j-yry ? A / i
ii

------------------ r v -  z :* * i— Z o /g__Q7jj££*> rz/>, •>.43 • :j
Jr

'fvAZ&O T-'uj^ 4SC- _ _Z- 4 4 $
"  -2

■Suyj/c- G2>s/jzc, (y////rs: Sitfsxz) J 3  ’

G/Z//y/u,i,^ ro>o. Gvjzcz/roC’ P '.J '- r J40* o  •

------------------ IS m&s s J 7 .3 o  j 3 a , *
1 ;'.' '"'j

]

----------------- ir>jo#/?, oss/y t Xyvvg>.._ /-7-qx>£. -y&y /̂iVts/ j
!

y > / .  *;<? ! £
■ ^ — -  

0

//jcj — /sr. ■} 3/rj>. /Zoo,? £ ‘//£S\S ! 
;._ rjcv> . sZLoo'Z- £fi>£C./s,.<,/rySu)rt£S
r i) C! "/}<'}//JO} — ’Sĵ J/oC A/rtCJ/M;Z Or'WfJ-G,

j
___ Si-!?v>. i '  o  ' I

* J y r 0 •
_ T̂i-OC*C «2>V/. £/*'.’+//y £$yy*fd&&

----------------Ate #+)•//*/•) _—__ d__Sh/'s.'/A-yf.7. v ? ? iv iw rj6 7 ,:io t f j 0 >
, . _ /  d V 'iJ W i/ r /  uiAf/M'S

----------------- />  c . ^ V / Z / . r  Ctr/A2X/. .Qn.ss/r&yo , ,
i i

y -.S e  i ^  j 0
|

'Pi/CJS/y'tUS*/ -  S'/S* Or-'S-Z'sfroiz* i | >  ! j

________ _____ ______  A __ * ____i>//o__ 0>JWsjro& i y  ! 2

- -  ... " . ...: . ~J * A  0? /*„rc*z  .. ! ? . * T  1 • j? i !

------------- --------- :____________ __  >£,V> A.v'.C > . - / /  1 £  ! •6  ! •
________________ ; / ________—_ '/ '■//.' i: ~ / 0Or ' J t Jwn, c : y . 3 £  j ! /  y ' /  O i

„  f Un^r / ,  Surwcz^ : 
---------- - ......  ..... JTT_A 'Pffy-Ac. .dVc, Ct-.Ui.ji_,._.#-.3_V... i

' /̂/usvu-.c Qj'uc.j C u s w M . j j

»_r
 

*
■ 

n
.

■ 
n

\

! 
I

7 4 -
I ? . < \





7^'?- 8.



a

. — O. Y-UU- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  ,
H a’Ji ds./;£:://-/ d/?v;o/J ~T7tjS

1 XtrfS?~ 
\ W amu./! '  - o c  -! / / ■ * ! < / • .  V /

7 3  r v . ' . ' .  T  //m s s *,
or i > V 4 -  

/&rr*'*r*x 1 xjfrloyyrZt

yi-^cj^ic S 'rs: rj3-*s v £ i ^ v . ’ x / \„J:40jA § . 

_/j j . s'o

! .. v # oij ... _ 6
f/iCJi -/^v .c s/s/a/ /

*?AJ7~ JP^/JZA-
1 _ / / / > *

7,2?

/
it it / o
It itj >.Jo

•
/ Q

JJJ. BZj _ J oi/ ^ ■ / Z o ^ / J a :  <D7>£&?r<iA J * S '

P sr,/  2 3 d  y  4  L/ru/ry > . £ 3 / /• / #  / /  • II St 7.47 A
It U H » >.s2 *__ _ * • * - Z111!

3»/
-ro.

7.<oS 9
1 j3U/J> £ u $S?/23 CjP£S?*TO& ■>.24- i - ■ 0

^y/r.&aa+ini/Z 7 ~7k&ss Q ke&»>a*!. •>.cr L

Pb^ ss J^Loog, (Jn ± sry 7.47 - J - —1 ■ 
P7j. t£JO 7 2 >  O rrM T o C , 7r.S4- »V - 1

_ _ _  fh -  7 z r / >  ~Pl/j.4&q _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 .4 7 i .
>/$/)£, " Z i c / A ^ i  (y/»/T£! «. 7.6S* 5 . i

(p£y?.<ss.z. s> rt SY, Qt jt m t t . i x s 2r 0
"LOty/A/t -7 C/jc/?.*/ui,r/T/s/g V/eet 2Z>xa >.47 3. l

JZLoo*. -ySeeyjf)// J3±. S~d >
/0

'’FlnUJiSffiJAjG -  /$SStS7>?A/r 'J'/k/.fljTTCCJZS.'1/!*/ \/M. J&isLjr T> >! 7.90 iI , . •
-  Jsrz $3rJ. /Zm c. C{j/S£jzs i . i d ? • i o _ . .
fj/sv. yAootc 'i'it&e* \. _  . - £ .  y2i-fJlO<- Af*/-»/MC O/Ŷ e/r/Ad 1S J 4 _  

- 7 . 2 1  .
S*3*Vh / i e o c  SofMcs ; . ■ =  L..Mrw//AJ/7 Oj't/.v. rCJi ! 6  i o'  y  j/'i.nts/A/r/. . _ _ _  /s-?C/S'S<//M7 ~  L.ZTc,. S4//c/*/i? O/vJ^DhCJ 7 .7 S  \ i. r/ z / r  ^ A > ,  -7 3 0 / -  i. . . . . .  /rsicjiti')/<■'$ -  o ' « e c « r o r c f _ _ _ _ ; 7,4? \

■ ■ • ■ • ■ .
^  i ^

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ " _  .  ./OOjL’i i ’M zti’l  • - * A J V  I ^. . . . .  1
yj.,/iz? T & r / V - c .  C/.’A'/r.wc. ! . . ,  . ^ 7  1

rum-H'/t YYsAJis- £uv*‘±*aat j I. . . . . .  . . .  \ ’/ - > . . JiAo . Cft&ji
I t-UA/A/LX- j j — [ • ”

U



• •

»
......................i _  ... !

I .......  . ......
/  j /

1 O f Y  1 • -  ~ v / A v y

1 ■ , o  ; /j i C?r*:S 5,7 “ i ->CS/ .f/ C T u rr.r)

; 0 i Ai o9’£ c r : u.7r^r *5 —
• o " / 0? rof | — .................. .....................  /

i r 00 >i/T~\ 'Tfrs'rfĉ /̂  *■”

L ....................i .
r  °
i ........

/ c  <? • r ^ / r '-yrrJLT/s/st/sy s ./ s u s . r/.r.yy—  —

o / cd’o?r 'ttUS't/f/
i c of O r * V

< ? ' " ~ 7 G4Tr£lT 2 Z r ^ ?  ff£>rf?
-...... -...... ....

-i / 0T4. ' W s i a f c i M /  . Az’cJ-fj'owy - ......-  ......

~~CT~ / Lf/l " ~2?2r7M'Ci’/  ZZfstVi'f' / —  — 1------------

i
o C~ st.r4.rt ufti-A'r&ftffi A&o-if&o&.&f

i
i_____

o s t ........... frC7
il ~ ~ r " 7 Z > w T *

i
t ~T ~ / O l’sf. .........................  ...... O iS 7 JJYJlVHy,
i
t

0 * oL-< ssf/^ A rfr^ ^ r) ivooy^yoj.s>;
i
I ,

o / ^£x.
! 6 < O fi— rryirtncrp f?oeyzr&aj.s>

J * J * - Lfr’K. $ 7?Z7facts'f(r>
; J* _ T Ly<

~lfv£.
t7c*tf37̂ r̂T&orĵ £~tts*M&p/ 2/vr’8:£~'??'?s*

~ r /

‘ T
................

£F* /S-z*zrj <Lyu/(

- .  —
j y v
~ i r *— |

------------------------- ------------------------'T/̂ sTTUfTHfî /A
W  "

f&sotsoprri/r/s-/*?/?) Tscso/rp ~ tzzrsvuyyy
si. | 'z&eZi/oy c/l'i'/) C/nory
rr X.J4 j r&c/.c/xrrjrc? r^ry  r / ^ f y

......................... j ............ . . .  /
ir
0 o r  ' fL?67~~ 1 Tr&stWi&fir’z  ^fre?rp

—

0
~ / £ — ~ 7 Z —

yyFft  p “  'rYzrr-r̂  0r*f r~!,S.'
O S'*f. i ~ 1 • ? 'r*.«; ?■?“  /> 

) ..•.. . ' r . y wC T x V  sr.̂ /.sr-y//
r z-j .i/.rith-):}ozrt>ap/UO J'c* 1 _ ->t* • _

O ’ V .V / W / / , /r.s/■;//. zfr/i/ /SOUi'-D /- ,’rrp - r r o  A  - 
i .  :



j L

. )  h  / ■ - / T / r i s :

U /n '* /- r r f/ /? A /c  r r  -

£ j i  r /S  -
. y / j s c r / i / . / ._____

-  0 -0 -  
h fa u r .J j '/

j 7 5  jr / j t .
1 r /u r r js c .
1 < *"
i £ t» v .r /r:tz

AJu+TECjC.
O K

rJ c * /zo ~
E m PU'/CI

/■ / /L t r j n ^  / 7 ^ Z / / aJa //C ^ _ _ P _ 0

. . . . .  C a/ajz/?  J z z - z .c :  t e a  c  ; /? aZ ; < r j r 6 / 7 _

T jS  TZZ UAtJZAJ 7- Z S u P Z S . IS/SO /Z / 4 o . J $ -  / _ 0

■ T a j J .L S ,  /&C,OA4 Q p£ je*?70 /Z 7 . / J J

T n j 2. 1L /: T o o  a ? //Z z? > £ £ . — >.sr A
____________ "  '  ' 7 . 7 0 / 1

X - Q - C 7 Q
Q jLAJ£A/AJA Z^EZA/AfA /A^ T  S& AJ/O jC. Z fccA /. sJ .0 0  k  J . / J 4 & £ ■

* * '  Z</e c a /a?aa/<*. • y .fo  A  * .9 1 7 0

! * * ~ J Z tp /o c  / I c z Z . * J S  k  JK fJ 4 /

M z ZA/jM /C S  Z 'U O .T '/X , i r .L /  k  r .H 3 7 7 6

Q /A .C X - 7 -.6 0  • i ( ,

S aL A I/- S jA j/.J .' S> (J*JJA?JLI.£U 7 4  y  A  - y .ia J S * / 4

^ /.E Z T T & K Z A A J  -  sS&A//OAC, M ' J ' ' - * 7 0

j ..........  »  iT tJA //O j£ . * ,9< L  ' V c
- ---------  ' "  /7j=TL7>^AZ. 773 , / 0

\ "  4i * .£ ,0 J
• y

1 .
!

• * 1

1 ■ , •
■ ■ 1

--------------------------------------------------- ------  r s f A j J  _____________ S ’/ O 3 * 7
|
1 * 

C r lS U S ib  . A/ma/Cj •>..17 79 /7
; i 1

I
f
i

/  Hr/?/!
J J  <44

., . . j

l

i ' 1
i

| »
i
1

i • ■ ) j j

I ‘ t ) j
10 /  -• | [

I '!

M *



/ s , V .77'-MLZJZ— '■o.

•V.'. •/ J,'. .

, v j :: Orz/r/a// •+*£&*//}//
•_ ..2.

/ / “"O/'//Tv■/
F j-s-V/—  PFc/.jyiy 

. '</■? )■/ J ' V/”- ^/?/ ' / 'r/.'
O'r'jL/J.tfTQAZ,

<J yO/?/c. . ^  .t/fr-ŷ /7"/_

Oj ŷ/jzjro ft

v 2-Fyj.A.

■Lj <? u/z> J"'-.'vvy/ •.
SyzTyc/.vijrc £ 'fkesz G'?tj-/?roK' 

F/Js-yy £ U 0jc, C/ysZ/jr/ 

r~j-r.uy ~7~o'P OrzjC/?7-o<c.

F~! J-7 Z:SJ- ~PlUZ yi/O
Suc/rfc. \Y/h /ts. )

DC'/jS/'j « ?  . < / i v . x  v : / . i  / / , ' / , < / >  / / t r  2 3 a y c S
7y?w» y/y /x/Y/ - >//</ F lo c ,c - - F o e 's / f it /

ft-HJJsl-jj/JtZ} — Jxt. $ 3f*s>- Fi-saz. (l/'/C-PS 
C3eo. /-j-oas: •Szza/v̂./ry 

fz/c ;.'//<} Qz/us/ri/j
^  (-po, 4

r z < t y - i. Orzjc/rrcxc

Jo o J:js. ~jc3*J'f - 7
// •*■, * • .* /•> • 

f  ■+!*■/■- //AW/i; V. .V/C;w " yjuzzz;.:z,t
n ’Fsr-'.w- JJ*uj.■c, J/-e Cf rx.j

r/uzM iJR. Oz.'-c.j CiiJ.fJ/tJZf j
\J-.-:< ‘.'.’t/r.

J, • . , , i/4r v.'"-
<T/.• r£+/s/- ‘ ,< .\-,i-£) .*,* Ctj-tjzJ.'-SJc

1 /CJ / / -7 -
| -  r./_ - '  

*/ ' *. '

j /r  / / / ♦ - ’
■ //v z  >• • x-

SA/s ■•*•••«.
CZ-

■ Z’ztPleVi.r-z

j 0  ..

j / « * / . / / o

i  J3 ? . JO
i
1 ; ...... . . . 0 .

x. - ; r <1-, 0

: / / G y r i  / o

•>. / +
i

...  «_Z ______457..

I -  7 . / - / . ........ .. / . /

! 6 3 ____ *
i  * / ? j - - - - ^ ______

j 7 -7 6  »
J O _____ / 0 _ , ,. .

j  2  ? r ... . 5 0

1 x. 7 6 . . ^

7 -. .7 ? ■ A *

... >< 7 f5 . .1 .

• p .rZ

-y .7 £> >w*- 1

p . S y #r .. . i  J

/ J :7. /o  
✓ 33 • to

/*/ Cl^tt-P Z-
1- ....... °

3-

—

3 . , ,  ,

/ o ..... j

> . / r  j 6 . . . . . .
$ ! z'* ^ 1 •*

•y. 6  o  : / ( i / 4  !
^.^6  :

i
i .  f ?  . j
l

!
y . 4 /  \ 7 F 1 - 7 r . j _

/ :  £  0 ; y ' o
/  1 w* C' <T*- o _

/ / J . s
•; . ^ 3 ‘y/&//*/.': j:

?igiW*U\s ;oi> 'larjsification titles of employees 
‘ujvtior.s or woo direct or assign other

•.•'!( .': unctj of work. M



r>o . — -  a  a+fs:

T o r

Tai- Cs.-,c T/zjz/z- 

A t r r

Ary jrj.‘ Tu.y.'/s Ao/?3>s-<c-

/ /../-v •.:.> Jy./AvC. Aet&f.&l

' M ^  w

3<±cu?su'<y Afae/////£S f / / ^ = - ; f  O rstfip t#
CwJ'S-’//.WC
/

. G t c /?A A -c z /-: J o v  

Jsfi/yi.Mp/: $  7 7 t s ^ / ~ t  T t r r & J i  J  7®. <*»<?/?
.T ,tz££./.\:oaJ Ct-^/zs A 7~yptsrs_ _  . .
C .lMUF/-.'-,~ . . . . .
//SS/37/;/s7~ ________

VJt.TCh' t-it//•/ ... .. ..
/✓ ;*•*>-c ■ • - j - . . . y  //sJ^ysisr ... _ ......... ..

7T*?/tS£.£7

1.̂/cjj.i/f.; /C/.>/</ /7ss/J7-si'/r

j - ! 
| v// .' .•'/ /j - «•»_—
\ n f iv r s - 'r

To 7 V/4 !
M/A/5T 1 0/-' •

tJuM 3& C .
o f

fi/tZQKO  
& W / C A rs

-

! Ŷ,3 *  l
2-J3 /-* 1 ,. / 4

1 ^ !....— ^ ’._

! /«* .j

*7 | .....**.

! 3.76 ^ ; 0
>.-r/ >" ; 2*

1/3/• o.o . ... . ✓  i______/I
*.60 6.1 ... 6 .

*.r/ r" JT

■ u .-n 3 0

y . j 'y / O

.... >./<? J 6

j. 5 ^ / _ J  _

>.r<? / .... / .j

/• ?o y ______0

f  -’ 7< 7 0 (0 . 0.

*65 V 0

Is . 4 ! / _____/ .

/ 0 0 / j .. .. 0 —

/ J & . G o /  ...
! ................
; 0...

/  > 6 . G o - ' -.

Z3 4 -. G o ; / _ 0
J K . o o 3 l .... 0 ...

/ jG . o c j
i
: / 1 ... 0

H G . 0 0 i 6 ! 01
j o i r / o ' • ..... 0

i . G / ! / 1 /

I A T



V/,

T ' i i  T F / C / 7 7 V 3 T  T ’-n-C 
- //*///r/v/ft/'c/s -

R*r/:r-
V/i-  c r  -
nsuci. y

T t r f l i/ / m / S t A« * •£ > / V j ^ / r- i s
a W « « .
A/C<f£9
Enruycci

/ . ' /  /  >5 7 - E V C  A / i T  c  / / / / / / /  O /to 0. T V • o _ _
J  £li~£. c. -/-/>/ c / / . V  / J KoC) • V V / o

/  v ; / . ' 7 "  'S u 7'£-‘&-V'Sg£> 1+4.92 / „ o
/SCO/-! -foh-iSA!/!// $ A£-'A/JCA’ /3 >. / 0 .  _ * 5 “ _ _ / _ _

,Zio/*‘*JLA! /-rite A/ r .  7 / J 3
? .  > 7 / / _

K - O - C?;0
,C/a M£a A/> .. MfrQtt&s/&s_ /*/o£ A7vQ*i>... v ? .  / /  7̂  j . ? y . c f 4 . . _ _ i L _

n •! , •- /'Jr?cTV?. / / C * 4  /  4  1 *_ ? . < ? < ?  r ?  3 .  / t f / 0

*  ~ Ult^/iC T / cM _  / . 3 > c T
" T a a t& c* _ _ _ _ . > - 7 ?  /* >4 s l° 

!

* » 7 / d>
Ss./:/- Sic^ir.Z/ : /  _ _ * J 7  V o  ? » 7 o . .  ^ *

E!irZ.c T v v c / / ? / /  -  S z /a o /C J.r4._ _ 7 - o
/! ~ -J~UA/0/̂ . .... J./4 ■.. 7 0

.... > ,2 3  ... .. / _ 0/ /  / / 7 -  7 £ / -  L

'_
7 " c >  r v ^ v T - £ 7 ?  |.3/4 _

^  / / « j  if /  ,*£j J-j//£. £/Zs >.4'y
l3 0  ! a t .

; S o y  ! j t,T „To r/?£.



ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY_9

I n  a n s w e r  t o  t h e  s p e c i f i c  number of employees who per­
f o r m  s u p e r v i s o r y  f u n c t i o n s  a t  its plant or who there direct or
a s s i g n  o t h e r  e m p l o y e e s  i n  t h e  p e r f o r m a n c e  o f  w o r k  - the total is 
5 2 ,  o f  whom 6 a r e  N e g r o e s ,

This a n s w e r  d o e s  n o t  c o n t a i n  information with respect 
t o  t h e  c o r p o r a t e  h e a d q u a r t e r s  l o c a t e d  i n  Savannah, Georgia, and 
D e f e n d a n t  a c c o r d i n g l y  seeks f r o m  the Court a Protective Order.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY 10

A n s w e r e d  i n  p r e v i o u s  interrogatories, see asterisk 
t o  I n t e r r o g a t o r y  R ( p .  12) and A n s w e r  to Interrogatory 9.

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY 11

All of the information sought in Interrogatory 11 has
b-r, supplied in p r e v i o u s  answers to Interrogatories 8 through 10, 
with the exception that Defendant has not disclosed the confidential 
s a l a r y  a n d  compensation p a i d  to individual named supervisors and 
e x e c u t i v e s  as r e q u e s t e d  f o r  the reason that to do so would or 
might s e r i o u s l y  i m p a i r  D e f e n d a n t ' s  competitive position in the 
l a b o r  market; Further, b y  r e a s o n  that preparation of such data 
w o u l d  be u n d u l y  b u r d e n s o m e  and would not lead to the discovery 
of any information with which the sublect matter is involved or 
is raised b y  - h e  complaint.

Miller, Beckmann & Simpson



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
______SAVANNAH DIVISION

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
Southern Oiotvr̂ i. of

<fA.N 9 1965

ADAM BAXTER, Cblaf Deputy Clark
P l u i i . t  i i

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304
'•A7ANNAR SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant

MOTION SEEKING PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING SCOPE 
OF INTERROGATORIES FROM DISCLOSURE OF INDIVIDUAL 

SUPERVISORS AND EXECUTIVE'S SALARIES AND COMPENSATION

DEFENDANT Moves the Court for an order that defendant 
be rot required to disclose any compensation or salary, paid to 
individual supervisors or executives upon the ground that such 
information might definitely impair its position in the labor 
market, and it seeks relief from answering Paragraph 11 on the 
ground that the answer would be unduly burdensome and would not 
lead to the discovery of any information with which the subject 
matter is involved or is raised by the complaint.

Attorney for Defendant
S a v a n n a h  Sugar Refining Corporation

V&*«. yg
Constangy & Prowell

A, C -



ORDER ON I N T E RROGATOR TES

T h e  C o u r t  c o n s i d e r s  t h a t  t h e  D e f e n d a n t ,  S a v a n n a h  S u g a r  

Refining C o r p o r a t i o n ,  h a s  a d e q u a t e l y  a n s w e r e d  t h e  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  

p r o p o u n d e d  t o  i t ,  a n d  i t  i s  h e r e b y  r e l i e v e d  f r o m  t h e  r e q u i r e m e n t  

o f  d i s c l o s i n g  a n y  c o m p e n s a t i o n ,  n r  s a l a r i e s  t o  i n d i v i d u a l  s u p e r ­

v i s o r s  o r  e x e c u t i v e s  u p o n  t h e  g r o u n d  t h a t  s u c h  i n f o r m a t i o n  m i g h t  

d e f i n i t e l y  i m p a i r  i t s  p o s i t i o n  i n  t h e  l a b o r  m a r k e t ,  a n d  i t  i s  

h e r e b y  r e l i e v e d  f r o m  f u r t h e r  a n s w e r i n g  P a r a g r a p h  11  o n  t h e  g r o u n d  

t h a t  t h e  a n s w e r  w o u l d  b e  u n d u l y  b u r d e n s o m e  a n d  w o u l d  n o t  l e a d  t o  

t h e  d i s c o v e r y  o f  a n y  i n f o r m a t i o n  w i t h  w h i c h  t h e  s u b j e c t  m a t t e r  

is i n v o l v e d  o r  i s  r a i s e d  b y  t h e  c o m p l a i n t .

d u l y  a u t h o r i z e d  a n d  e m p o w e r e d  t o  a d m i n i s t e r  o a t h s ,  ROBERT PENN 

G IL E S ,  w h o  b e i n g  f i r s t  d u l y  s w o r n  d e p o s e s  a n d  s a y s  t h a t  h e  i s  

A s s i s t a n t  V i c e  P r e s i d e n t  o f  S a v a n n a h  S u g a r  R e f i n i n g  C o r p o r a t i o n ;  

t h a t  h e  h a s  r e a d  t h e  a t t a c h e d  M o t i o n  a n d  O r d e r  a n d  t h a t  t h e  f a c t s  

c o n t a i n e d  t h e r e i n ,  a r e  t r u e  t o  t h e  b e s t  o f  h i s  k n o w l e d g e  a n d  b e l i e f .

v •
U . S .  DISTRICT JUDGE

PERSONALLY APPEARED b e f o r e  m e ,  t h e  u n d e r s i g n e d  o f f i c e r

A s s i s t a n t  V i c e  P r e s i d e n t  
S a v a n n a h  S u g a r  R e f i n i n g  C o r p o r a t i o n

Sworn t o  a n d  s u b s c r i b e d  b e f o r e  me

/
N O T A R Y  P U B L IC *



IN Tin: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CEORCTA 5. DISTRICT COURT
gaaUMn Dlstrlot of Omrn'SAVANNAH DIVISION Ttl04 1» office

BAXTER, ET A L . ,

P l a i n t i f f s

VS.

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

D efendant

■ j& N  1 4  1969

Chief Deputy Clerk

C IV IL  ACTION NO. 2304

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

That p o r t io n  o f  the  a tta ch e d  su pp lem en ta l o rd e r  in  Lo ren zo  

Hayes, e t a l . v . Seaboard Coast L in e  R a i l r o a d  Company, e t  a l .

( C i v i l  A c t io n  No. 2371) w h ich  d e a ls  w ith  c la s s  n o t ic e  i s  e q u a l ly  

a p p l ic a b le  to  the  above e n t i t l e d  a c t io n .  By re fe re n c e  th e  su pp lem en ta l 

o rd e r  in  th a t  re s p e c t  in  Hayes i s  adop ted  as th e  o rd e r  o f  t h i s  C o u r t  

in  B a x te r . The m o tion  by p l a i n t i f f s  to  a l t e r  o r  amend th e  re q u ire m e n t 

o f  n o t ic e  to  members o f  the  c la s s  as r e q u ire d  in  R u le  2 3 (b )(3 )  a c t io n s  

i s  d e n ie d .

T h is  ;'V  day o f  Ja n u a ry , 1969.

JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

/ O j f c *



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 0. S. DISTRICT COURT 
Southern DlBtrlet of h.

SAVANNAH DIVISION In off lee

LORENZO HAYES, e t  a l . )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

^iLLU t L

*JAN
ZJuMhiMd*-1

P l a i n t i f f s Chief Deputy Clerk

VS. C IV IL  ACTION NO. 2371

SEABOARD COAST LINE  RAILROAD 
COMPANY, a c o rp o r a t io n ,  e t  a l .

D e fendan ts

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

In th e  o rd e r  o f  t h i s  C o u rt da ted  December 9 , 1968 judgm ent was 

re s e rv e d  on th e  is s u e  o f  w he the r " r e a l  e ndeavo r" by th e  Equa l 

Employment O p p o r t u n it ie s  Com m ission to  m ed ia te  th e  g r ie v a n c e  i s  

a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  p r e r e q u is i t e  f o r  F e d e ra l C o u r t  a c t io n s  by  a g g r ie v e d  

em p loyees under T i t l e  V I I  o f  the  C i v i l  R ig h t s  A c t  o f  1964. W h ile  I 

was tempted a t  th e  t im e  to  f o l lo w  Choa te  v . C a t e r p i l l a r  T ra c to r  

Company (7 th  C i r . )  No. 16700, O c to b e r 17, 1968 and Johnson  v .  Seaboard 

C o a s t L in e  R a i l r o a d  (4 th  C i r . )  No. 12154, O c tob e r 29, 1968, I d e c id e d  to  

a w a it  d ie  r u l in g  by the  C o u r t  o f  A pp ea ls  f o r  th e  F i f t h  C i r c u i t  in  the  

ap pea l in  James C. Dent and U n ite d  S ta te s  E qua l Employment O p p o r tu n ity  

Com m ission  v .  S t .  L o u ls -S a n  F ra n c is c o  R a ilw a y  Company, e t  a l . , 265 
F. Supp 56.

That d e c is io n  has now been handed down. The C o u r t  o f  A p p ea ls  f o r  

t h i s  C i r c u i t  sa y s  th a t  "a  p la in  re a d in g  o f  th e  s t a t u t e  does n o t j u s t i f y  

the  c o n c lu s io n  t h a t ,  as a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  re q u ire m e n t f o r  a c i v i l  a c t io n  

by cue a g g r ie v e d  em ployee u rd e r  S e c t io n  706 ( e ) ,  th e  Com m ission must 

actually a ttem p t and engage in  c o n c i l i a t i o n . "  See D en t. No. 24810 and 
two a p p e a ls  c o n s o l id a te d  w it h  i t ,  d e c id e d  Ja n u a ry  8 , 1969.



I now o v i ' I ' i  n  I •' f’. r o u i n l  J  o |  Ho I ,* ii il;n il * n Mol I o n  i n  III nnil  m i .

I a ls o  h e ld  up my d e c is io n  in  re s p e c t  to  D e fe n d a n t 's  M o tion  to  

D ism is s  on th e  ground th a t  t h i s  C o u r t  i s  w ith o u t  jurisdiction because 

o f  n o n -e xh a u s t io n  by p l a i n t i f f s  o f  a d m in is t r a t iv e  remedies under the 
R a i lr o a d  Lab o r A c t .  I  had m is ta k e n ly  supposed th a t  this issue which 

was d e c id e d  a d v e r s e ly  to  the  d e fen d an t in Dent by the District Judge 
was in v o lv e d  in  th e  appea l in  th a t  c a se . Under these circumstances,
1 r u le  th a t  c o l l e c t i v e  b a rg a in in g  p ro ce d u re s  b e fo re  th e  R a i lr o a d  

A d ju stm en t Board  a re  n o t a r e q u is i t e  to  s u i t  by  em p loyees against 

th e  r a i l r o a d  under T i t l e  V I I .  G round 3 o f  Defendant's Notion to 
D ism is s  i s  t h e r e fo r e  o v e r ru le d .

C la s s  A c t io n  N o t ic e

In the  o rd e r  o f  t h i s  C o u rt da ted  December 9 , 1968, I  s p e c i f ie d  

th a t  p l a i n t i f f s  p r o p e r ly  re p re s e n t  a c la s s  c o n s is t in g  o f  all Negro 

em ployees o f  the  de fend an t R a i lr o a d  a t  o r  n ea r Savannah who belong to 
o r  a re  e l i g i b l e  f o r  m embership in  e i t h e r  o f  the two local defendant 
B ro th e rh o o d s . I  d ir e c t e d  co u n se l f o r  d e fe n d a n ts  to  present a form of 

n o t ic e  and a suggested  manner o f  g iv in g  same In  accordance with 
R u le  2 3 (b ) ( 3 ) .

P l a i n t i f f s  have moved to  a l t e r  and amend the order so as to designate
th e  c la s s  a c t io n  as one under 2 3 (b ) ( 2 ) .  The result would be that no 
n o t ic e  to  the  members w ou ld  be r e q u ir e d .*

A t th e  t im e  I r u le d  in  re s p e c t  to  th e  c la s s  th a t  th e  p l a i n t i f f s  

re p re s e n t  in  t h i s  ca se  I was aware th a t  th e  a c t io n  was b ro u gh t p u rsu a n t 

to  R u le  2 3 (b ) ( 2 ) .  1 was a ls o  aware th a t  th e  e x is t e n c e  o f  q u e s t io n s  o f

law  o r  f a c t  coirmon to  the  members i s  a l le g e d  and th a t  th e  p ra y e r s  o f  the 
c o m p la in t  in c lu d e  one f o r  g ra n t o f  b ack  pay to  th e  c la s s .

I ag ree  w it h  th e  sta tem en t in  th e  a b le  memorandum f i l e d  on b e h a lf  

o f  p l a i n t i f f s  on t h i s  q u e s t io n  th a t  th e  a l le g a t io n s  "a b u n d a n t ly  meet 

e l l  o f  the  re q u ire m e n ts  o f  R u le  2 3 ( b ) ( 2 ) . "  A c co rd in g  to  the  A d v is o ry

* However, under R u le  23 th e  c o u r t  may in  any a p p ro p r ia te  instance 
e n te r  o rd e rs  r e q u ir in g  n o t ic e  to  members o f  the class so t h a t  they 
may s ig n i f y  w he the r th ey  c o n s id e r  the  r e p r e s e n ta t io n  adequate and, 
i f  d e s ir e d ,  in te rv e n e  in  the  a c t io n .  See 2 3 (d ) ( 2 ) .

IIOc
( 2)  ,



Com m ittee report, the reach of that sub-paragraph is illustrated 
by actions in the Civil Rights field when a defendant is charged 
with discrimination againat a class whose members are not easily 

capable of specific enumeration. See Jenkins v. United Caa Corporation. 
400 F.2d 28, 34. Here, the members of the specified class are not 
only capable of identification but are relatively saull in number.
I do not think (b)(2) is Intended to apply where the existence of 

racial discrimination may require varying solutions by the court 
under different factual situations as to employees. Final relief 
herein, for all I know, may predominantly involve the issue of 
money damages. In such cases (b)(2) non-notice is inappropriate.
At least, that is the way I read the Advisory Coaatlttee notes as 
to amended Rule 23.

I gathered at the oral argument that one of the chief coaqilaints 
of plaintiffs concerning requirement of notice to the class specified 
is that it would be an exercise in futility. I disagree. I think 

notice to members of an identifiable, unmuneroua class may be salutary 
and of value. I do not foresee any possible harm or hurt flowing 

from notice. I cannot understand the apparent reluctance of plaintiffs 
to let non-party employees know that litigation which may affect their 
jobs, including higher pay and promotion, is .in progress. A disclosed 
rather than a secretive agency is prefereable in such cases.

I therefore adhere to my original order specifying the class 
representation and providing for notice to members. In an area of 
law  so shifting and unstable courts must feel their way. My order is, 
of course, alterable at any time prior to decision on the merits under 
Rule 23(c)(1).

In the alternative plaintiffs have moved, pursuant to Title 23 
5 292(b), for certification for the purpose of an interlocutory appeal
o.. iu s  issue. In suet, a case the'Court must find that an Jjamediate 
appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

(3)

/// <



Being of Che definite view Chat an Incerlocucory appeal upon the matter 
of (b)(3) notice to Che cleaa would have an oppaalte affect plaintiffs' 
motion for certification of the lsaue la denied.

Similarly, the motion by Seaboard Coaat Line to certify the Jury 
question for immediate interlocutory appeal la denied. I am confident 
chat by the tine we get down Co a hearing on the merits in this esse 
the jury issue feature under Title VII will have been authoritatively 
dealt with on higher levels.

This 14th day of January, 1969.

(a.- * i . - , wy— «■
JUDGE. UltITEO STATES DISTRICT COOlf' 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA



IN THE IN  m i l l  STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA .  B I m l „

ADAM BAXTER

P l a i n t i f f

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1
)
)
)
)

Chief Deputy C le r k

VS. Civil. ACTION NO. 2304

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFININC 
CORPORATION,

Defendant

O R D E R

On December 9 , 1968, the  C o u rt e n te re d  an O rde r in  the above 

c au se , d i r e c t in g  th a t  a c la s s  a c t io n  s h a l l  be m a in ta in e d  under the 
p r o v is io n s  o f  R u le  23 o f  th e  F e d e ra l Rules o f  Civil P ro cedu re  as 
amended. S a id  O rde r d ir e c t e d  c o u n se l to  p re p a re  a form  of notice 
to  f u l f i l l  the  re q u ire m e n ts  o f  S u b d iv is io n  (b)(3) o f  Rule 23 and 
to  p re se n t such form  n o t ic e  to  th e  C o u r t.

The re q u e s ted  n o t ic e  has been p ro v id e d  by counsel for defendant 
and d u ly  approved by t h i s  C o u r t .  Such n o t ic e  i s  he reby  incorporated 
as a p a r t  o f  t h i s  O rd e r.

In co m p lia n ce  w ith  th e  n o t ic e  provisions of Rule 23 (c)(2) I 
have de te rm in ed  th a t  under the  circumstances the best notice practicable

s : u l l  be g iv e n  as f o l lo w s ;

(1) u  p re se n t members o f  Che d e s c r ib e d  c la s s  by m a i l in g  to  each 
member named in  th e  a tta ch e d  l i s t  a t  h i s  d e s ig n a te d  a d d re s s  a copy o f

s a id  n o t ic e  and a form  fo r  re q u e s t in g  e x c lu s io n .

(2) To p e rso n s  who s h a l l  in  the  f u tu r e  become members o f  th e

.h ... r ib e d  c la s s  upon employment bv s u p p ly in g  th e  p e r s o n a l o f f i c e  o f  

Joloudan. plant with sufficient copies of the  n o t ic e  h e re in  in c o rp o ra te d  

sno li notice to uu given by du lu ndan t Co each new ly employed member.

I t  i s  t h e re fo r e  o rd e re d  a t  th e  C le rK  se rve  a copy o f  t h i s  o rd e r  

upon a t to rn e y s  io r  a l l  p a r t ie s  anti fu r tn e rm o re  o rd e re d  Chat c o u n se l



* »*•' d e lo n d n iil s c l  I I 1 ih > |»II <>l t h i s  i i r i l iT  l>y d i ro c  I I  in; I In*

h e re in  d e s c r ib e d  n.'t ic e  in  the  manner p ro v id e d  w it h in  te n  days o f  

s e r v ic e  o f  t h i s  o rd e r .

T h is  14th  day of February, 1969.

JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

* t



TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
_________SAVANNAH DIVISION_________

)
)
) CIVIL ACTION WO. 2304
)
)
j gpriCE or PEWPEMCY or action

)

To ail Negro employees presently employed or as shall 
be employed in the future by Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation 
where plant is located at Port Wentworth. Georgia, who work, or 
may work, as Boiler Room Helpers or as Relief Helpers.

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Order o f  the 
Court dated December 9. 1968. of the pendency of the above action 
commenced March 8. 1968.

Adam Baxter filed the above-mentioned action under 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as a class action 
on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking Injunctive and 
other relief against alleged racial discrimination in employment. 
The petition alleges that the plaintiff was denied equal employ­
ment opportunities on the ground of his race and that he is 
entitled to injunctive relief. The petition alleges that tha 
plaintiff is presently employed by Savannah Sugar Refining 
Corporation, and has beer, so employed for the past fifteen (15) 
years. The plaintiff further alleges that he is presently em­
ployed as a Relief Operator's Helper in the Boiler Room of the 
company and that he has approximately twelve (12) years of 
service ;.n this classification and that he has been wrongfully

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff

VS.
SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant

EXHIBIT “A



p a s s e d  o v e r ,  b y  r e a s o n  o f  h i s  r a c e ,  when t h e  defendant came to 
f i l l  v a c a n c i e s  i n  t h e  O p e r a t o r ' s  H e l p e r  and operator classifl-
cations. The plant records of the defendant show that you are 
one of its employees employed a s  a regular Boiler Room Helper 
or Relief helper and, a s  such, properly come within the cate­
gory that are entitled to notice of the pendency o f  the action 
brought by the said Adam Baxter in line with the order of 
December 9, 1968.

The company has denied any discrimination and has 
asked that the plaintiff be dismissed on a number o f  grounds.

On December 9, 1968, the District Court overruled 
the defendant's Motion to Dismiss and directed that this case 
proceed as a class action under the provisions of Rule 23(b)(3) 
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

or future ala s members pursuant to the provisions of Rule
23(c)(2). t h a t :

1. The Court will exclude from the class each 
person presently belonging to such class who request exclusion

C l a s s  m e m b er s  e m p l o y e d  by S a v a n n a - .  Sugar R e f i n i n g  Corporation 
i n  t h e  B o i l e r  Room a s  r e . ^ l a r  Boiler Room Helpers or Relief 
H e l p e r s  may r e q u e s t  e x c l u s i o n  a t  any t i m e  f o r  ninety (90) c.ys 
f o l l o w i n g  t h e  d a t e  o f  e m p l o y m e n t , p i . v i d e o  t h a t  s u . n  p e r i o d  

does n o t  e x t e n d  b e y o n d  t.he t r i a l  date o f  t h i s  a c t i o n .  p e r s o n s  

wno r e q u e s t  e x  c u b i c n v . - . x  .. »t b e  b o u n d  b y  t h e  j u d g m e n t  r e n ­

d e r e d  i n  c h i .  c a s e .  R e q u e s t s  : o r  e x c l u s i o n  s h o u l d  o e  s e n t  to 
t h e  l l e r k  of th v  u n i t e d  ~ ; i . D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  f o r  t h e  Southern

Notice is hereby given to those described as present

o r g x u .  S a v a n n a h  Division. A f o r a  for this pur-
on. . : d .



2. The final judgment entered in this case will 
include, and will be binding upon, all members of the class 
who do not request exclusion, whether or not the judgment is 
favorable to plaintiff, it will apply to all whom the Court 
ultimately finds to be members of the class.

3. If you do not request exclusion, you may, if 
you desire, enter an appearance through counsel of your own 
choosing. Plaintiff is represented by Attorney Bobby L. Hill, 
458-1/2 West Broad Street, savannah, Georgia. Defendant is 
represented by Attorney R. M. Hitch of the firm of Hitch, 
Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, P. o. Box 8426, Savannah. Georgia. 
If you do not request exclusion, and you do not enter an 
appearance through counsel of your own choosing, the above- 
named counsel for plaintiff will represent your interests in 
this case.

This . 1969.

Judge, United States District Court 
For the Southern District of Georgia



BOILER ROOM HELPERS:

Lucious Height
636 West 40th Street
Savannah, Georgia 31401
Willie McMillan, Jr.
35 Burke Avenue 
Savannah, Georgia 31408
Ned Singleton, Jr.
1408 McKensey Place 
Savannah, Georgia 31405

RELIEF HELPER:

Eddie Lee Smith
1628 Newcastle Street
Savannah, Georgia 31401



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
_________SAVANNAH DIVISION__________

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff

VS.

SAVANNftH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant

)
)
) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304
)
)
) REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION
)
) FROM CLASS ACTION
)
)

TO: CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 
GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIVISION

The undersigned respectfully request to be excluded 
from the class action in the above cause, in accordance with 
the terms of the Notitfe of Pendency of Class Action dated
February 1969.

I understand that by this request, whether the judg­
ment is favorable to or adverse to the plaintiff, I will not be 
bound by the judgment rendered in this case.

DATED: This _____ day of 1969.

1 1 7 a



Hitch , Mil le r , B ec k m a n n  & S impson

< O C  «j E ' ; R G  A S T A T E  B  A r>. K B U I L D I N G

O  B  « W R i G h T S Q U A R E  S T A'./ • * N M. MILL I R  
UiiR L> C. B L . K M A N N ,  JR, 
;"N fcl . S I M P S O N  

WILLIAM H. TCASLtY
S A V A N N A H ,  G E O R G I A  31-402 A R E A  C O D E  9 1 ?  

T E L  2 3 2 - 6 1 5 1A M A R T I N  K E N T  
O M N  M  . T A T U M

February 18, 1969

Mr. Louis E. Aenchbacher 
Office of the Clerk 
United States District Court 
Post office Building 
Wright Square Station 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

In Re: Adam Baxter vs. Savannah Sugar

We enclose herewith copies of the letters
which we have mailed out pursuant to the request 
of Judge Lawrence in the above-captioned case.
The letters were transmitted by registered mail 
and it would seem that this letter should probably 
be filed indicating that we have complied with 
Judge Lawrence's views

Refining Corporation 
Civil Action No. -34-&S -L 3 r

Dear Louis

R. M. hitch
RMH/st

Enclosures



Hit c h , Mil le r , B ec k m a n n  & S im pso n

ROBCBT M . HITCH 
J O H N  n .  M I L I  c »  
I U H H  o  c  P T C H M A  
J O H N  t .  S I M P S O N  WILLIAM M. TCASLCV 
A.  M AWT  I N H t N T  
J O H N  M .  T A T U M

< 0 0  G E O R G I A  s t a t e  B A N K  B U I L D I N G  

P .  O  B O X  0 4 2 6  W R I G H T  S O U A R C  S T A .  

SAVANNAH. OEOROIA 31402 A R E A  C O O C  » « £  
T I L .  f 3 C - i l » l

February 18, 1969

Mr. Willie McMillan, Jr.
35 Burke Avenue 
Savannah, Georgia 31408
In Re: Adam Baxter vs. Savannah Sugar 

Refining Corporation 
Civil Action No. 2304

Dear Sir:

There is now pending in the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, 
Savannah Division, Civil Action No. 2304 brought by 
Adam Baxter vs. Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation 
alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. Pursuant to a request by the 
Court, we send you a copy of the following:

(a) Notice of Pendency of Action; and,
(b) Request for Exclusion From the Class

Action.

- y '• %  i u * .

R. M. Hitch
RMH/st

Enclosures



R O B E R T  M.  M I T C H
J O H N  B .  M I L L E R
L U M R  O  C -  B E C K M A N N ,  J R .
J O H N  E . S I M P S O N
W I L L I A M  M.  T E A S L E Y
A .  M A R T I N  R E N T
J O H N  M .  T A T U M

Hit c h , M il le r , B e c k m a n n  & S im pso n

< 0 0  G E O R G I A  S T A T E  B A N K  B U I L D I N G  

P. O  B O *  8 < J 6  W R I G H T  S Q U A R E  STA. 

SAVANNAH. OEOROIA 31402 A R E A  C O D E  S I C  
▼ CL. tlt-BItl

February 18, 1969

Mr. Luclous Height 
636 West 40th Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401
In Re: Adam Baxter vs. Savannah Sugar 

Refining Corporation 
Civil Action No. 2304

Dear Sir:
There is now pending in the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, 
Savannah Division, Civil Action No. 2304 brought by 
Adam Baxter vs. Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation 
alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. Pursuant to a request by the 
Court, we send you a copy of the following:

(a) Notice of Pendency of Action; and,
(b) Request for Exclusion From the Class

Action.
Very truly

R. M. Hitch
RMH/st

Enclosures



H i t c h , M i l l e r , B e c k m a n n  & S i m p s o n

4 0 0  O E O P G I A  S T A T E  B A N K  B U H . O I M O

R O D C N T  m . H I T C H
j o m n  n. M iu r «
L U H N  O . C .  P C C H M A N N ,  J R .  
J O H N  t .  S I M P S O N  
W I L L I A M  M .  Y C A S L C V  
A .  M A R T I N  R E N T  
J O H N  M .  T A T U M

P .  O .  BOX 0 4 2 6  R R I O H T  0 O U A R E  S T  A .  

S A V A N N A H . OCOPOIA 31401 A M A
▼sc.

February 18, 1969

Mr. Ned Singleton, Jr.
1408 McKensey Place 
Savannah, Georgia 31405
In Ret Adam Baxter vs. Savannah Sugar 

Refining Corporation 
Civil Action No. 2304

Dear Sir:

There is now pending in the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, 
Savannah Division, Civil Action No. 2304 brought by 
Adam Baxter vs. savannah Sugar Refining Corporation 
alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. Pursuant to a request by the 
Court, we send you a copy of the following!

(a) Notice of Pendency of Action: and.

Action.
(b) Request for Exclusion From the Class

RMH/st
Enclosures

R. M. Hitch

6 S



non cn r m . h i t c h

J O H N  *». M I L l C A
L U M A  o  . c .  n e c a M A W w ,  jm.
J O H N  C . S I M P S O M
W I L L I A M  M .  f C A K I V
A . MAMT lM RKMT
J O H N  M . T A T U M

H i t c h . H i l l e r , B c c k h a n n  &  SlM(*tON
«00 oeonoi* state s a n k buildimb
P . O .  B O X  • « * « .  W N IO M T  S O U A N C  I T A .  

SAVANNAH. OCOMOtA 3MQt

February 18, 1969

Mr. Eddie Lee Smith 
1628 Newcastle Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401
Xn Res Adam Baxter vs. savannah Sugar 

Refining Corporation 
Civil Action No. 2304

Dear Sirs

There is now pending in the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, 
Savannah Division, Civil Action No. 2304 brought by 
Adam Baxter vs. Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation 
alleging discrimination under Title VIX of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. Pursuant to a request by the 
Court, we send you a copy of the followings

(a) Notice of Pendency of Actions and,
(to)

Action.

R. M. Hitch
RMH/st
Enclosures

Request for Exclusion From the Claes 

Very truli

^  a



U. S . DISTRICT COURT • 
Sou th e rn  D i s t r i c t  o f  da. 

K i lo d  In  o f f la *

— ------ ----K.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _19J
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP GEORGIA

SAVANNAH DI VIS ION Deputy Clerk

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff

vs.

SAVANWH SUGAR REPINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION 
PROM CLASS ACTION

TOi CLERK OP THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OP 
GEORGIA, SAVANNAH DIVISION

The undersigned respectfully request to be excluded 
from the class action in the above cause, in accordance with 
the terms of the Notice of Pendency of Class Action dated
Pebruary /  1969

I understand that by this request, whether the Judg­
ment is favorable to or adverse to the plaintiff, X will not be 
bound by the judgment rendered in this case.

jjr-'

I <■



IN TIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF qgOgOIft.STRICT COURT

S/VAXSAH DIVISION Southc < r>I =■ ?.*•: r* of Go.
Vi\-M Us?

ADAM BAXTER, )
)

Plaintiff )
)

VS. )
)

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING )
CORPORATION, )

)
Defendant )

________ _________________________ )

Chief Deputy Cleric
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION

TO: B033Y L. HILL, ESQUIRE, Plaintiff's Attorney, 458-1/2 
West Broad Street, Savannah, Georgia 31401.

Please take notice that at 10:30 A.M. on the 26th 

day of March, I960, the defendant in the above-entitled action 

will take the deposition of the plaintiff, Adam Baxter, upon 

oral examination pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Proce­

dure, before William DeLoach, Court Reporter, or before some 

other officer authorized by law to administer oaths, in the 

offices of Hitch, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, 400 Georgia S t a t e  

Bank Building, savannah, Georgia. The oral examination will 

continue from day to day until completed. The purpose of the 

deposition is for cross-examination.

HITCH, MILLER, BECKMANN & SIMPSON

ay.
Attorney for Defendant

?. G. Box 8426 
Savannah, Ga. 31402

C .'ir i ir iC A T ii OF SEBVICE
Thi.i R to certify that I haw this cloy served counsel for all IWi.es> .n the* lOiCi.oin;- mailer w.lh this pleading by
n.ilircie.ir.;: the same t.>_l:obbV. 3. Ilill. Enquire 
Al&.-L/?, -VriB Street. Savannah.
Georgia 31401
"'•** ** i. r ut j)........ . .... o it: -iC l .'tilled States ni.di 

•-i-3 finy ol--
______ _ ___ 1:1 69

Defendant
C J U___ __\

A ttorney  i[,r __



' v P*u_ CNITl D STATES D ISTRICT COURT 
FC - Ch.. SOUTHERN D IST R IC T  OP GE ORGIiU0*?1̂ STRICT Ct m■ J A /V W m  D i v i s i o n  u . *•3»Utl>*m ruirt-t 'if

n.*4 i® <.ii»**

t o i r . t i  ft

)) Civil Action No. 2304(V/̂ n .to VGA.'. REPINING

•it- fondant

-'SfiJ aKfa. PtffQMTIQH UPQM ORAL examination

. ... : U T  h. -squire. Defendant'• Attorney, P. 0. Box B426,
M  ir.ah, Georgia, 31402, and ROBERT PENN GILES, 3 / 0  

j-tivannaV: Sugar Refining Corporation, Savannah Bank Building,•>a,'a-'...--tS, Georgia, 31401.

•1:,*:..' take notice that at 10i30 A.M., on the Bth day of 
>'■ r-*‘* plaintiff in the above-entitled action will take

of the defendant, ROBERT PENN GILES, upon oral 
1 that i or. wrsuant tc the Pederal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Ooroti y Brown, Court Reporter, or before aorae other 
jUthr ; id by law to administer oaths, in the office of 

.'By w„ riILL, 45n<j West Broad Street, Savannah, Georgia. The 
' l * x;* 'iration will continue from day to day until completed.
• y**r-- ’T' -• '’•I'3 du -ot ition is for cross-examination.

45BIJ West Broad Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

/</ck



CtHTIFMATB OF SERVICE

i

'iJr
ij

i

This is to certify that I have this day mailed copies of 

the foregoing Notice to Mr. R. M. Hitch, Attorney for Defendant 

and Mr. Robert Fenn Giles, Defendant, by depositing same in 

the United States mails, properly addressed and with adequate 
postage thereon.

This 16th day of June, 1969.

BOBBY L . it ILL

Attorney for Plaintiff

iI
j



iw t:u v : s i y - xatps d i '.trxxt i- marr co.7-j
?0.'. 1>- D I3 T  IX  : t  O r *  GliOIfG#* /  <*.,

)) H v i l  A.’t i o n  .Jo . 2.1 aa

I

f.-.A !-»• » ■ • ;XX'XO-'i UPON /RAI, uA.^I.V ifM j
|

XT.'.4, i be  f o n d a n t '  ■ A t t o r n e y ,  P .  C . S o x  8 4 2 6 ,  i
v - o r a i a ,  . a n d  X*. - .  B.SRJoGoAY, R i a n t  j

t- no . i t .  Ja'/,;.v..w. » a :id r  R - - f i r . i n g  ' o r p o r » t i o r t #
->a:.r. d i n . - .  M / a n n a h ,  3- o r g i e .  3 1 4 0 1 .

v t u  -.at a t  1 0 : 3 0  A . r  . ,  o n  t h e  3 t h  a».y  

, t h e  i - . c l n t i  Xt i n  t h e  a b o v e - e n t  i t l e d  a c t  to .;  w i l l  

c n t ; o n  :>! t h e  d e f e n d a n t ,  u .  t .  &-RC2Git\Y, u p o n  '.ire 

" l . tn t  '.c th v  ?-i.#j e r a l  R u l e s  o f  ' i v i l  i - r c t e n u r e ,

■ / >f o w n ,  » . r t  :<• ->ort s r ,  o r  b e f o r e  s o  » o t h e r

. /  Irttf tv. a d r d n i s t  ..r o a . i  t .  n  t.i -  c f f l - e  •• f
i

4S 5 We tit r o a d  S t r e e t ,  S a v a n n a h ,  G e o r g i a .  Fhe 

lo t  t i n  frors  d a /  t c  d a y  u n t i l  o c n p l  

• • ~ r - _  Q c p o s i t i o n  is f o r  ; r o s « . - e x a m i n a t i c n .

V ‘
BOBBY L,. hlXiL ^

4 3 8 -5 W - s t  B r o a d  S t r e e t  
>avar*nah, G e o r g i a  3 ' 4 '

.VrTCRNoY FOR PLAINTIFF

I; / rv I



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

ji
It

|'i s
ll
'l

,1

i

This is to certify that 

of the foregoing to R. M. HITCH, 

and L. E. BERCEGEAY, Defendant,

I have this day mailed copies 
Esquire, Defendant’s Attorney, 

by depositing the same in the
United States mail addressed to the said addresses appearing
on the said Notice.

This 20th day of June, 1969.

v

BOBBY L. HIl7L 
Attorney for Plaintiff

A



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER
Plaintiff

*

vs -
* Civil Action No. 2304SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 

CORPORATION,
Defendant

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
TO: R. m . Hitch, Esquire, defendant's attorney, P. O. Box 8426

Savannah, Georgia, 31402; Robert F. Giles, Walter C. Scott 
and Meredith Davis, c/o Savannah Sugar Refining Corpora­
tion, Savannah Bank Building, Savannah, Georgia, 31401.
Please take notice that at 1:30 p.m., on the 23rd day of 

January, 1970, the plaintiff in the above-entitled action 
will take the depositions of the defendants, Robert F. Giles, 
Walter C. Scott and Meredith Davis, upon oral examination pur­
suant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before Dorothy 
Brown, Court Reporter, or before some other officer authorized 
by law to administer oaths, in the office of Bobby L. Hill,
458l2 West Broad Street, Savannah, Georgia. The oral examina­
tions will continue from day to day until completed. The pur­
pose of the depositions is for cross-examination.

458*2 West Broad Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

> ROBERT BELTON

e
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF



I

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

SAVANNAH DIVISION ;
„ I

'7, /‘U-f:.

Civil Action No. 2304

I
MOTION TO INSPECT

Plaintiff, Adam Baxter, moves the Court for an order 
requiring defendant Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation*

1. To make available the physical premises of the 
Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation located at Garden City,
Georgia, for the purpose of permitting plaintiff and his attor- I

|neys to review and inspect between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 
12:00 P.M. on the 23rd day of January, 1970, or as soon there­
after as is possible for plaintiff and his attorneys.

j
2. To permit plaintiff and his attorneys to enter upon 

the above-mentioned and described property and to inspect and to
i

photograph said property and objects which are non-privileged i 
and relevant to this cause. ii

3. Defendant has possession, custody and control of the 
foregoing premises, objects and real estate. Each of them con- i 
stitutes evidence relevant and material to the matter involved
in this action.

458-‘i West Broad Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401 
ROBERT BELTON 
10 Columbus Circle 
Now York, New York 10019 
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

i; /

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff

-vs -

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER,
*

Plaintiff
*

- vs - Civil Action No. 2304
*

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION, *

Defendant *

N O T I C E  O F  MOTION FOR MOTION TO INSPECT
TO: Defendant and the attorney of record for the defendant

her e i n:

Please take notice that on the _____ _ day of

I9Xi, at the courtroom of the United States District Court in
the Federal Building, Savannah, Georgia, at _______ A.M., or
as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, the plaintiff will 
move this court for a motion to inspect the physical premises 
of the Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation located at Garden 
City, Georgia.

Savannah, Georgia 31401
ROBERT BELTON
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

■At • 'V,'
..A./



L i Tilt UlilTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SM EKU IISTR ICT  QF GtQKSIff: a,.Sou1V -rn »»• * _

■ ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff

VS.

SAVA® AH SUGAR REF I ii M G  
CORPORATION

Defendant

F, 1. a offio*-
M.

2 7 l'-iil-w - v

' * / Deputy Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 2304

m m  FOR LEAVE TC F ILL 
AfODED COMPLAINT

COMES DOW the Plaintiff by his undersigned attorneys
AND MOVES THIS COURT FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT HERETO­
FORE filed on March 3, 1958, in the above styled cause so as 
TO INCLUDE A CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. §1981. A COPY OF THE PRO­
POSED Amended Complaint is attached hereto. As grounds for 
this Motion, Plaintiff alleges that:

1. Adjudication of the claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981 would 
place in issue the same facts, circumstances and substantive
QUESTIONS OF LAW AS ADJUDICATION UNDER TITLE VII. THE COURT'S 
GRANT OF LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WOULD THUS FACILITATE AND 
SIMPLIFY THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THIS LAWSUIT, IN ACCORDANCE 
WITH THE GENERAL POLICY IN FAVOR OF REACHING THE MERITS OF 
CLAIMS, WITHOUT CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE ACTION.

2. Plaintiff's purpose in presenting this Motion to Amend
IS TO EXPEDITE PROCEEDINGS.

3. Plaintiff's interests and the expeditious disposition
OF “HESE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED IF LEAVE

t r i o

i



TO AMEND 13 DENIED.

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF PRAYS that the Court grant him leave 
to file his Amended Complaint as prayed herein.

20o East Thirty-Fourth Street 
Savannah, Georgia 3WQ1

10 Columeus Circle 
ew Yo rk, Tew York 10019

Respectfully submitted.

JACK GREENBERG 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
MORRIS J. 3ALLER
Attorneys for Plaintiff

/ * r < - PAGE TWO



LlTiiE liiiLIEP STATES DISTRICT .COURT FOR THE 
SOUTHER; DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

SAYfliMH DIVISION

AJAit BAXTER.
Plaintiff )

VS. j CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 2M
SAVANiiAh SUGAR REFIiJIiJG i
CORPORATION.

Defendant )

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. ssl331 and 1343(4), and 28 U.S.C. §2201. This is a 
suit in equity authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 
2000e-5(f) of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Ac t, 42 U.S.C. 
s§2000e e l . s£Qjl and 42 U.S.C. #1981, and for a Declaratory 
Judgment as to the rights established under such legislation. 
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to secure the protection
AND REDRESS THE DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS ESTABLISHED BY (1) 42
U.S.C. ss2000e el. seq. providing for injunctive and other
RELIEF AGAINST RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND (2) 42 
U.S.C. 51981, PROVIDING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS AND ALL 
OTHER PERSONS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

LL
Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on

BEHALF OF OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED PURSUANT TO RULE
23(b )(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The c u s s  
which Plaintiff represents is composed of persons who have
BEEN DENIED OR IN THE FUTURE WILL BE DENIED EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
OPPORTUNITIES BY DEFENDANTS ON THE GROUNDS OF THEIR RACE OR 
COLOR. IV.IS CUSS IS SO NUMEROUS THAT JOINDER OF ALL MEMBERS 
iS IMPRAC_ICA3I.E; THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT COMMON



TO THE CUS$; THE CUIMS OR DEFENSES OF PLAINTIFF ARE TYPICAL 
OF THE CLAIMS OF THE CLASS AND PuiNTIFF WILL FAIRLY AND 
ADEQUATELY PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS. DEFENDANT HAS 
ACTED ON 6R0UNDS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO THE CLASS, THEREBY 
MAKING APPROPRIATE FINAL, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OR CORRESPONDING 
DECLARATORY RELIEF WITH RESPECT TO THE CUSS AS A WHOLE.

ILL
This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent injunc­

tion, RESTRAINING DEFENDANTS FROM MAINTAINING A POLICY, PRACTICE, 
CUSTOM OR USAGE OF (a ) DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PLAINTIFF AND OTHER 
.icGRO PERSONS IN THIS CLASS BECAUSE OF RACE OR COLOR WITH RESPECT 
TO COMPENSATION, TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PRIVILEGES OF EMPLOYMENT 
AND (B) LIMITING, SEGREGATING AND CLASSIFYING EMPLOYEES OF
Defendants, Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, in ways which 
deprive Plaintiff and other i'Iegro persons in this class of
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND OTHERWISE ADVERSELY AFFECT THEIR 
STATUS AS EMPLOYEES BECAUSE OF RACE AND COLOR.

1Y
Plaintiff, Adam Baxter, is a black citizen of the United 

States residing in the City of Savannah in the State of Georgia. 
Pu i n t i f f Adam 3axter is and has been employed by Defendant 
Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation at its Savannah Georgia i
PLANT FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN (15) YEARS. PLAINTIFF ADAM BAXTER

IHAS SOUGHT VARIOUS TIMES AND CONTINUES TO SEEK PROMOTIONS AT
Defendant Company but to date has served only as a relief
OPERATOR HELPER.

V
Defendant, Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation (herein­

after REFERRED TO AS "THE COMPANY") IS A CORPORATION DOING 
BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA. THE COMPANY OPERATES AND 
MAINTAINS A PLnNT AND OTHER FACILITIES IN THE ClTY OF SAVANNAH 
AND IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA. TfE COMPANY IS AN EMPLOYER WITHIN , 
THE MEANING OF 42 U.S.C. §2000e('b ) IN THAT IT IS ENGAGED IN AN 
INDUSTRY AEFEC ING COMMERCE AND EMPLOYS MORE THAN 25 PERSONS.

H  1 PAGE TWO



n
The Company is divided into several departments. Job

CLASSIFICATIONS IN THE COMPANY DETERMINES THE RATE OF PAYMENT 
AN EM°_OYEE RECEIVES. PROMOTIONS FROM ONE JOB CLASSIFICATION 
TO ANOTHER ON A HIGHER LEVEL WITHIN A DEPARTMENT UNDER ORDINARY 
CIRCUMSTANCES DEPEND/ IN PART. UPON THE SENIORITY STANDING OF 
AN EMPLOYEE IN A GIVEN LINE OF PROMOTION. Tit SENIORITY STANDING. 
IN PART, ALSO DETERMINES WHICH EMPLOYEES IN A GIVEN DEPARTMENT 
ARE LAID-OFF FIRST IN THE EVENT OF A REDUCTION OF THE WORK FORCE.
Within each department are operators' helpers and relief opera­
tors' helpers. Both such classifications assist "operators". 
Relief operators' helpers are the lowest paid of the three
CLASSIFICATIONS BUT PERFORM SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME JOB FUNCTIONS 
AS THE OTHER TWO. PLAINTIFF AND THE CLASS HE REPRESENTS HAVE 
BEEN, THROUGHOUT THEIR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY, LIMITED TO 
THE CLASSIFICATION OF RELIEF OPERATORS' HELPERS. BLACKS ARE NOT 
AND NEVER WERE HIRED INITIALLY AS EITHER OPERATORS OR OPERATORS'
helpers. White employees were always and continue to be hired
AS OPERATORS OR OPERATORS' HELPERS AND GIVEN LIMITED ON-THE-JOB 
TRAINING AT DEFENDANT COMPANY. BLACK RELIEF OPERATORS' HELPERS 
FREQUENTLY TRAIN WHITE EMPLOYEES FOR OPERATORS AND OPERATORS' 
HELPERS POSITIONS WHICH THEY ARE TO TAKE. PURSUANT TO THE POLICY, 
PRACTICE. CUSTOM AND USAGE OF DEFENDANT COMPANY, BLACK EMPLOYEES 
WERE AND CONTINUE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM JOBS IN CLASSIFICATIONS 
OTHER THAN THAT OF OPERATORS OR OPERATORS' HELPERS. BEING 
CLASSIFIED AS AN OPERATORS' HELPER IS A PREREQUISITE TO BEING 
CONSIDERED FOR PROMOTION TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF OPERATOR.

m
Plaintiff and the class he represents are qualified for

PROMOTIONS AND FOR TRAINING OR EITHER WHICH COULD LEAD TO 
PROMOTIONS ON THE SAME BASIS AS SUCH OPPORTUNITIES ARE PROVIDED 
FOR WHITE EMPLOYEES.

VIII
Plaintiff Adam Baxter is presently employed as a relief

OPERATOR'S HELPER IN THE COMPANY'S BOILER ROOM DEPARTMENT. He

PAGE THREE



HAS APPROXiMATELY TWELVE (12) YEARS OF SERVICE IN THIS CLASSI­
FICATION. However, his seniority is greater than that of many
WHITES WHO HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO OPERATORS. He HAS BEEN WRONG­
FULLY PASSED OVER BY SENIORITY IN FILLING VACANCIES IN THE 
OPERATORS' HELPERS AND OPERATORS CLASSIFICATIONS.

IX
The Company has refused and continues to refuse the Plain­

tiff AND THE CLASS HE REPRESENTS FULL AND FREE ACCESS TO ALL 
Company facilities which are otherwise available to white 
EMPLOYEES ON A NON"DISCRIMINATORY BASIS IN VIOLATION OF TlTLE VII 
of the Act known as "The Civil Rights Act of 1969", 92 U.S.C. 
§20Q0e e l  seq.

X
The Defendant Company has consistently and purposefully 

limited and deprived black employees of their rights under 
Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1959 and 92 U.S.C. §1981, 
with the intent and design to foster and protect the advantage
SENIORITY AND ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE WORKERS AT THE AFOREMENTIONED
Company.

XI
A. On or about January 12, 1966, Plaintiff filed a com­

plaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging 
a violation by the Defendant of this Plaintiff's rights under 
Title VII of "The Civil Rights Act of 1969". 92 U.S.C. s2000e 
e l  seq. On July 21, 1967, Plaintiff was notified by the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission that "reasonable cause" had
3EEN FOUND, 3Y THE COMMISSION, TO BELIEVE THAT HIS RIGHTS WERE 
VIOLATED AND THAT CONCILIATION EFFORTS WOULD BE MADE BY THE 
COMMISSION TO ELIMINATE SUCH PRACTICES. UPON REQUEST BY THE
Plaintiff, in a letter dated February 13, 1968, Plaintiff was
ADVISED 3Y THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION OF HIS 
RIGHT TO INSTITUTE A CIVIL ACTION IN THE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL
District Court within 30 days of receipt of said letter.

PAGE FOUR



B. Neither the State of Georgia nor the City of Savannah
HAS A LAW PROHIBITING THE UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES ALLEGED 
HEREIN.

m
Plaintiff and the class he represents have no plain,

ADEQUATE OR COMPLETE REMEDY AT LAW TO REDRESS THE WRONGS 
ALLEGED HtREN AND THIS SUIT FOR A PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT 
INJUNCTION IS THEIR ONLY MEANS OF SECURING ADEQUATE RELIEF.
Plaintiff and the class he represents are now suffering and i
WILL CONTINUE TO SUFFER IRREPARABLE INJURY FROM THE DEFENDANT'S ! 
POLICY. PRACTICE. CUSTOMS AND USAGES AS SET FORTH HEREIN.

WHEREFORE. PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY PRAYS that this Court
ADVANCE THIS CASE ON THE DOCKET, ORDER A SPEEDY HEARING AT THE 
EARLIEST PRACTICABLE DATE, ORDER HIS CASE TO BE IN EVERY WAY 
EXPEDITED AND UPON SUCH HEARING TO:

I

1. Grant Plaintiff and the class he represents a
PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ENJOINING THE DEFENDANT,
Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, its agents, successors,
EMPLOYEES. ATTORNEYS AND THOSE ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM AND 
AT THEIR DISCRETION FROM CONTINUING OR MAINTAINING ANY POLICY, I
PRACTICE, CUSTOMS, OR USAGES OF DENYING, ABRIDGING, WITHHOLDING, 
CONDITIONED. LIMITED OR OTHERWISE INTERFERING WITH THE RIGHTS OF
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to enjoy equal
EMPLOYMENT AS SECURED BY TITLE VII OF THE ClVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
1964, 42 U.S.C. s2000e e t. s eq. and 42 U.S.C. §1981.

2. Grant Plaintiff ano the class he represents a preli-
|

Ml NARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION ENJOINING DEFENDANT, SAVANNAH
Sugar Refining Corporation, its agents, successors, employees,
ATTORNEYS AND THOSE ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM AND AT THEIR 
DIRECTION FROM CONTINUING OR MAINTAINING THE POLICY, PRACTICE, 
CUSTOM AND USAGE OF VIOLATING PLAINTIFF'S RIGHTS TO EQUAL ACCESS !
to Defendant Company's plant facilities and requiring their use
ON A DIFFERENT BASIS BY WHITES AND BLACKS.

/ v PAGE FIVE



3. Grant Plaintiff and the c_ass he represents a frelim;-
NARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCT.ON ENJOINING THE DEPENDANT/ PAVANNA -
Sugar Refining Corporation, its a g en ts, successors employees,
ATTORNEYS AND THOSE ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM AND AT THE.,<
direction from conditioning, limiting and d e p r tv :ng t h e m  of

THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTIONS BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE AND COLOR.

4. Grant and direct that Plaintiff, Adam Ba x t e r, be

YIATELY PROMOTED TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF OPERATOR, WITH 
RITY IN SUCH CLASSIFICATION DATING FROM THE IRST INSTANCE 
'IGFUL FAILURE TO PLACE HIM IN SUCh CLASSIFICATION.

5. Grant Plaintiff and the class he represents back pay
FROM THE DATE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT FOR HAVING BEEN WRONGFULLY 
DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PROMOTION.

o. Allow Plaintiff his costs h e re in, including reasonable
ATTORNEYS' FEES, AND OTHER ADDITIONAL RELIEF AS MAY APPEAR TO
this Court to be equitable and j u s t.

Respectfully submitted

208 East Thirty-Fourth Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

1C Columbus Circle 
New Yo r k, New York 10019

JACK GREENBERG 
WILLIAM L. ROBING; 
MORRIS J. BALLEil

Attorneys for Pl a in t if -

PAGE SIX



jin THE (JiNllED STATES DISTRICT court for jhF
SOUTHERN DTSTRICT OF GFOROlA-'- 5- d i s ™ c t  c o u r t5ouM:c*rii [ ;;’t r . ct. of G

SAVAiiNAH DIVfSTnM ‘Ued ». o.T:c,
Gfl.

ADAM UAXTER,
Pla in tiff

VS.

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION.

I;
Defendant

SEP 2  "• H71
M.

2

Deputy Cler*

QVIL ACTION NUMBER 2304

liOiQRANDUM IN SUPPORT OF m o t i o n FOR 
LEAVE TO FILE AMENDFri rnMP) a m

ii
Pla in tiff  submits this Memorandum in Support of his 

Motion for Leave to F ile  Pl a i n t if f ' s Amended Complaint and

j i  SUBMITS THAT THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT SAID MOTION FOR THE 
FOLLOWING REASONS:

1

Amendments to Complaints Are Liberally 
Allowed as a & neral Practice Under 15 
<a ) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 15(a ) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states
THAT LEAVE SHALL BE FREELY GIVEN WHEN JUSTICE SO REQUIRES" TO 
AMEND PLEADINGS. As ILLUSTRATED IN 3 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE, 
874-875, Federal Courts have generally given this rule an
EXTREMELY BROAD AND LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. FOR EXAMPLE: THE
Supreme Court in EflMM vs. t e .  371 U.S. 178, 9 L.ed. 2d 222 
(1962) NOT ONLY STATED AT 181 THAT THIS "MANDATE IS TO BE HEEDED 
BUT ALSO HOLDS AT 182:

I f  t h e  u n d e r l y i n g  f a c t s  o r  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  
r e l i e d  u p o n  b y  a  p l a i n t i f f  may b e  a  p r o p e r  
s u b j e c t  o f  r e l i e f ,  h e  o u g h t  t o  b e  a f f o r d e d  
a n  o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  t e s t  h i s  c l a i m  o n  t h e  
m e r i t s .

See also , UfiLTLiLSiAlta vs. Hqugham, 364 U.S. 310 (1966). Thus,



Federal Courts emphasize the substantive merits of the claim and 
APPLY &JLE 15(a) LIBERALLY, FARKAS VS. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., 

429 F.2d 849 (1st Cir. 1970), Middle Atlantic Utilities Co . v s, 
SMI,1 Development Corp., 392 F.2d 380 (2nd Cir. 1968). Plaintiff
SUBMITS THAT IN LIGHT OF THESE CASES THE COURT SHOULD FAVORABLY

consider his Motion and grant Pla in tiff  leave to amend.

11
Amendment to Include a Section 1981 
Claim Should 8e Granted As a Matter 
of Course,

Plaintiff submits that this Court should routinely allow 
AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE A S1981 CLAIM BECAUSE IT CAUSES NO SIGNI­
FICANT substantive change in the action. In Dobbins v . Lo ca l 
212 I3EH, 292 F. Su pp. 413, 69 LRRM 2313 (S.D. Oh i o, 1968), the 
Court permitted amendment of the original Title VII claim to 
INCLUDE A CLAIM UNDER §1981 AS A MATTER OF COURSE. THIS WAS 

LOGICAL AS IN SUCH CASES THE TITLE VII CLAIM AND THE *1981 CLAIM 
INVOLVE IDENTICAL ISSUES OF FACT AND LAW.

Indeed, Pl a in t if f ' s present Motion to Amend to include a

51981 CLAIM IS BASED ON THE SAME ALLEGATIONS AS THE TITLE VII 
CLAIM: (1) RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE COMPENSATION, TERMS, 
CONDITIONS. AND PRIVILEGES OF EMPLOYMENT, AND (2) DEPRIVATION OF 
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES BY DISCRIMINATORY SEGREGATION AND 
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS. THUS THE SAME CONDUCT OF DEFENDANT IS 
THE BASIS OF THE ACTION UNDER EITHER THEORY. THE AMENDED
Complaint differs  from the original complaint only in its

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS AND PRAYERS. ALL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

REMAIN UNCHANGED. In FACT, THE VERY NATURE AND COURSE OF THE 

ACTION WOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED AS TO THE MERITS.

As a r esu lt . Pla in tiff  submits that the §1981 claim  could

H A V E  BEEN INCLUDE! IN THEIR ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. In MIDDLE

Atlantic Ut i l i t ies Co . v s . SMW Development Corp. , supra, at 385, 
t h e  Second Circuit h eld :

PAGE TWO



. . . if a meritorious claim is offered 
and if there will be a little resultant 
prejudice to defendant, plaintiff is 
normally entitled to a hearing on the 
merits. This is especially true where 
the new matter could have been included 
in the original pleadinqs. [Emphasis added]---- ------

Therefore, denial of leave to amend in such a case would make
TOO MUCH OF PROCEDURAL NICETIES AT THE EXPENSE OF ADJUDICATION 
OF A SUBSTANTIAL CLAIM.

If ALLOWED. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WOULD DO NO MORE THAN 
GIVE AN ADDITIONAL JURISDICTIONAL BASIS FOR ENTERTAINING THE 
MERITS OF THE CLAIM. THE JURISDICTIONAL ADEQUACY OF §1981 IN A 
SUIT FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION WHICH MAY ALSO BE BROUGHT
under Title VII is explicitly recognized by the Fifth Circuit's 
construction of 42 U.S.C. §1981 in Sanders v s . Dobbs Houses.
JhCj.. 431 F.2d 1097 (5th Cir. 1970); Cald w ell  v s. National Brewing
Company. ___  F.2d ____ , 3 F.E.P. Cases 600 (5th Cir. 1971);
Boudreaux v s. Baton Rouge Marine. 437 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir . 1971). 
See also. Jones v s. Alfred H. Haver Co . . 392 U.S. 409 (1968);
Clark v s . American Karine Corp. . 304 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La . 1969).

Moreover, leave to include the §1981 claim would not
PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS. WHEN PLAINTIFF FILED HIS ORIGINAL TITLE

VII suit. Defendant was put on notice that its specified conduct 
WAS alleged to constitute racially discriminatory employment 
practices. As pointed out above, a §1981 claim might properly
HAVE BEEN LODGED AT THAT TIME. BASED ON IDENTICAL FACTS. In 
ADDITION, EXACTLY THE SAME RELIEF IS SOUGHT IN THE AMENDED 
COMPLAINT AS WAS SOUGHT IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. THEREFORE, 
SINCE THE AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE SAME DISCRIMINATORY i
CONDUCT BY DEFENDANT AND SEEKS THE SAME RELIEF AS THE ORIGINAL
Complaint, Defendant can in no way be harmed by the inclusion 
OF THE §1981 CLAIM IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. THlS ABSENCE OF
ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT COUPLED WITH THE FORCE AND CLARITY i• I
of the F ifth Cir cu it ' s decisions in Sanders, Ca: dwfii and 

Houdreaux should lead this Court to grant, as a matter of course, i 

Pl a in t if f ' s Motion for Leave to Amend.

/ w *  PAGE THREE ,
I



For the foregoing reasons. Pla in tiff  submits tht the 

Court should give leave to Amend the Complaint to include a 

CLAIM UNDER 92 U.S.C. S1981.

HILL.iJQUES & FARRINGTON

208 cast Thirty-Fourth Street .......
Savannah, Georgia 31901 FLETCHER FARRINGTON

10 Columbus Circle 
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019

JACK GREENBERG 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
MORRIS J. BALLER

Attorneys for Pla in tiff

ns* PAGE FOUR



CERTIFICATE PE SERVICE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that copies of the foregoing Amended 

Complaint. Notion For Leave To F ile  Amended Complaint and 

Memorandum In Support Of  Motion For Leave To F ile  Amended 

Complaint, have been mailed on the day of September. 

1971. to :

Mr . John E. Simpson 
Hitch . Mille r . Beckmann & Simpson 
Post Of fic e  Box Number 8926 
Savannah. Georgia 31902

and

M r . J . Lewis Sapp 
CONSTANGY & PROWELL 
1900 Peachtree Center Building 
230 Peachtree Str ee t . North West 
Atlanta . Georgia 30303

Attorneys for Defendant. Savannah Sugar Refining  Corporation.

FLETCHER FARRINGTON
Attorneys for Pla in tiff



S. v v s r . r r r f
!•... UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UJ«E■■*’ »»■ * <-
.HE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA cts ...••»

SAVANNAH DIVISION

s a x  :

'.VANNAH SUC.-.:-

O C T 121371*
j S & T d s  O

)
laintiff )

) 
) 
)

■;.i I*.IN1 • CO;'; CRAI-iO.* . )
)De t or. dan L )

p.-l'-A' 'At

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2 304

■ iS'eN: * I I. ! LAiNTIiT'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW TONES .vannah Cupar Refining Corporation, 
xt! o n d u h t, an«i. ' i t hcc.o it:; Defenses To Plaintiff's First 

....•nui-a ( o.v.. ; I r . ; nows:

FIRST DEFENSE

;-laijitiff'a First Amended Complaint fails to state 

x claim again.;! Defendant upon 'which relief can be granted.

‘ '■ -OS'_  .»iIf"ENSE

Defendant files this :* , answer to the enumerated 

paragraphs of First Amended Complaint and shows:

C; ■ . : L:. t.

• •. • <i)\ : «i ; »i. . ; ■ • };•

. ..; fjn Lr.tcrveni;.i;

the 1urisdiction of the Court and

contained in Paragraph I of the

l]U‘ • L

•

!ana contained in

■'•V* :!.% i-.y way of further answer to

no i i.. 1aragraph II, Defendant answers

■dor oh :.;kj Court dated December 9, 1968

I I A



Page l

has defined the "class which Plaintiff represents" as those 

employees employed in the Holler loom and that the Plaintiff 

only has standing to bring this action before this Court on those 

matters which were raised in the Plaintiff's charge filed 

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

3.

Defendant admits that this is a proceeding for a 

Declaratory Judgement as to the Plaintiff's rights for an 

injunction; however, Defendant denies the remaining allegations 

of Paragraph III. further, Defendant answers that the 

Plaintiff is only entitled to raise those matters which were 

rtised in r I tlnl.il f charge filed with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission prior to the institution of this 

action. All other allegations oi discrimination are not only 

vague and conclusionary in nature but, further, the Plaintiff 

has no standing to raise these other allegations, therefore 

Dclondunt's Answer Is tailored in accordance with the Order of thi 

Court Dated December 9, 1968,

4 .
Defendant admits that the Plaintiff, Adam Baxter, 

is a citizen of the United States, residing in Savannah,

Ceorgia and that the Plaintiff is presently employed by the 

Defendant. Defendant denies the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph IV.

ol
Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph V 

Co m p l a i n t .

6 .
Defendant admits the allegations contained in the 

first sentence of Paragraph VI. Defendant also admits that 

s>'iiio * 1 V does play a part in determining promotions and layoffs; 

however, Del end.ml emphasizes that seniority is merely one of 

the standards or guidelines used in determining promotions 

and layoffs, further, 'while it is admitted that in certain 

areas or departments there are the classifications of Operators 

and Operator-Helpers, and that in those departments where there

/ V € c .



Page 3

are Operator-Helpers and Relief Operator-Helpers these 

classifications often do assist the Operators, Defendant 

denies the Relief Operator-Helpers are the lowest paid of 

the three classifications. Defendant denies the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph VI.

7.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph VII 

of the Complaint. Defendant denies that there is any 

distinction in promotional opportunities between whites and 

blacks in the class allegedly represented by Plaintiff.

8 .
Defendant admits that the Plaintiff does work as 

a Relict operator-He 1 per in the Company's Boiler Room; however, 

the Defendant denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 

VIII.
9.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph IX 

and X. Further, Defendant answers that the Plaintiff is only 

entitled to raise those matters which the Plaintiff has properly 

raised in Plaintiff's Change filed with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commisssion prior to the institution of this action.

In an interim Order of this Court dated December 9, 1968, the 

Court liar; limited the class and cause of action that the 

Plaint ill has standing to bring before this Court and, therefore, 

Defendant's Answer is tailored accordingly in order to properly 

frain the issues now pending before this Court.

1 0 .

In answer to Paragraph XI of the Complaint, the 

Defendant admits the allegations contained in Sub-paragraphs A and 

B of Paragraph XI, however, the Defendant denies that it denied 

any right granted to the Plaintiff by the provisions of Title 

•l?, ■>. 0. .dec, ?()0Ci (e).

11.
Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph XII 

ol :.iic Complaint.



Page Four

WHEREFORE, Having fully answered, Defendant prays 
that the Complaint be di .missed, with all costs to be borne by 
Plaintiffs.

Respectfully submitted,

CONSTANCY & PROWELL

HITCH, MILLER, BECKMANN & SIMPSON

'I'llt: I ■ I 
I'.'i ; >

.Ill-: <>. 
■v 111 .! | I, I IV ;

.v.y. \ .\ \f  . ■•• «»«• to  j

_ '/ / i>H‘ ' ̂  L.~ f •

/ f O A
: V o is



IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
S O U T H E R N  D I S T R I C T  O F  G E O R G I A  

S A V A N N A H  D I V I S I O N

A D A M  B A X T E R ,

Plaintiff,
v.

SAVANNAH  SUGAR R E F IN IN G  

C H R P . ,

Defondant

)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

1-

r S

m — -*-s
j. l -. L\j {-Lxj

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ' *' '"..7 • -k /
ENLARGE THE CLASS '

COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, ADAM BAXTER, by and through his 
undersigned counsel, and moves this Court for an Order 
enlarging the class which olaintiff seeks to represent in 
this aption to include all black employees at defendant 
Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, and all those persons 
who have or will be subjected to the unlawful employment 
practices complained of in this lawsuit. Grounds for this 
Motion are set out in the attached Memorandum.

Respectfully submitted,

HILL, JONES & FARRINGTON 
208 East 34th.Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

B v , i ^ u L c Z — J L ,
FLETCHER FARHlNGTO\ 
Attorneys for Plaintiff

ISI*



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

T hereby certify that I have served the foregoing 
Plaintiff's Motion To Enlarge The Class upon John Simpson, 
Attorney for Defendant, by hand this 17th day of May, 1972.

i

I



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 

SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER,
Plaintiff, 
v.

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORP.,

Defendant.

U. S. DISTRICT COURT 
Southern District of Co. 

k'Utxl JLn office

MAY 2 2 1372 •v-“ -

C v I’oputy Clurk 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2304

PLAINTIFF 1 S MEMORANDUM 
IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO 

ENLARGE THE CLASS
Plaintiff, Adam Baxter, is a black employee of Savannah 

Sugar Refining Corporation. He filed this suit in 1968, 
aliening that the Company discriminated against himself and 
other black emnloycos in violation of Title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e. Plaintiff sought to 
prosecute this action on his own behalf arid on behalf of all 
persons similarly situated pursuant to 23 F.R.C.P.

On December 9, 1968, this Court, by Chief Judge Alexander 
A. Lawrence, entered an Order provisionally limiting the class 
to those black employees working in the boiler room (plaintiff 
Baxter's department). Baxter v. Savannah Sugar Refining 
Corp. , 46 F.R.D. 56 (S.D. Ga. 1968). In so limiting the class,
however, the court held that:

My order has a possible interim status. The 
foregoing direction as to the class composition involves 
no unfairness or hardship upon anyone since the scope 
of the class can be broadened it it should be found to 
be too much restricted. 46 F.R.D. 60.
Plaintiff stronnly urges that the "interim" order was, 

as a matter of law, too restrictive, and that the class 
should now be broadened to include all blacks who have 
suffered or will suffer discrimination at the hands of the

I Q



defendant. The plain reading of Judge Lawrence's order
indicates that plaintiff's Motion is timely, and should be
given serious consideration by the court.

In the December 9 order, Judge Lawrence set forth a few
of the conditions under which the Court might re-examine
its determination of the class size.

other grievances, additional party plaintiffs 
or intorvcnors are considerations which would require 
re-examination and re-appraisal of my preliminary 
determination, and they are not exhaustive of the 
causes underlying possible subsequent alteration . 
of this class definition. Before or at the hearing 
on the injunction, plaintiff will have opportunity 
for factual demonstration of any error in my thinking 
as to the class chase and as to my definition as of 
now of the class represented by Baxter. If so 
convinced of error, the case would proceed with a 
broadened class base. 4 6 F . R. D~ 60 (emphasis
supplied).

Plaintiff does not necessarily contend that the 
December 9, 1968 order was erroneous, especially since the 
Court so clearly indicated that the Order was subject to 
revision, probably at the time the case came to trial.
Indeed, this very order has been cited by other Courts for 
the proposition that Rule 23 is flexible, and that the 
position now urged by plaintiff is perfectly within the 
ambit of Rule 23. Yaffc v. Powers, 4 54 F.2d 1362, 1367 
(1st Cir., 1972). "The genius of Rule 23 is that the trial 
judge is invested with both obligations and a wide spectrum 
of means to meet those obligations". 454 F. 2d 1367.
Rather, plaintiff's position is that the December 9 order 
should now be read literally, that the scope of the class 
should be re-examined, and, for the reasons set forth more 
fully below, the class should be expanded. Failure to do so, 
we believe, would clearly be erroneous.

I
T11K LAW, AS DEVELOPED SINCE DECEMBER 9, 1968,
LEAVES NO DOUBT THAT PLAINTIFF'S CLASS PROPERLY 
INCLUDES A M , BLACK EMPLOYEES OF SAVANNAH SUGAR 
KEVI N' INC,  CORP.

When Judqe Lawrence's provisional order was entered, Title VII 

had been effective for just over three years. Very few, if any 

cases had been decided on the merits. The Court was faced with 

a dearth of precedent, although we believe that Jenkins v.

is%,
\> •:



-3-

United Gas, 400 F. 2d 28 (5th C'ir., 1968) and Oatis V. Crown 
Zellerbach, 398 F. 2d 496 (5th Cir. 1968) , cited by the Court, 
strongly pointed to a broader class. There can be no question 
now, however, that to limit the relief to those employees in 
the boiler room is entirely inconsistent with the teachings of 
the progeny of Oatis and Jenkins.

Cir. 1969), plaintiff was discharged on what he alleged was 
racial grounds, and brought suit under Title VII after 
having filed charges with the E.E.O.C. The district court held 
that Johnson was a proper class representative only as to other 
black employees who had been discharged, and that he had no 
standing to represent others, including employees or prospective 
employees, who might suffer racial discrimination under the 
policies of the company. The Fifth Circuit, in reversing, held 
that to so restrict the class was erroneous since, 17it is clear 
from the pleadings that the scope of appellant's suit is an 
'across the board attack' on unequal employment practices."
417 F. 2d 1124.

in Johnson, has concluded that plaintiff, despite his broad 
attack on the Company's discriminatory policies, could properly 
represent onlv a "class within a class" - not all blacks who 
have suffered discrimination, but only those who have suffered 
discrimination under plaintiff's peculiar set of facts. While 
there may be factual differences in discriminatory practices

|
from department to department, the proper resolution of those 
who do not fall precisely within plaintiff's situation, but, as | 
Oatis and Johnson teach, in the fashioning of sub-classes within j 
the class. See also Bateman v. Retail Credit Co., 3 FEP Cas. 4701

i(d.D. Ga. 1970).
Oddly enough, on the same day that it restricted the 

class in Hi i s case, the Court held in another case that plaintiff.^

In Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 417 F 2d. (5th

The case at bar is no different. Here the court, as



4-

i!

ii

were prooer representatives of all black employees of Seaboard 
Coastline in or near Savannah who were eligible for membership 
in I lie Union which was a defendant in the case. Hayes v. 
Seaboard Coastline Koalroad Co., 46 F.R.D. 49 (S.D. Ga. 1968). 
See also English V. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., Southern 
District of Georgia, Waycross Division, No. 691, Order of 
August 17, 1971. Plainly, the thrust of these and other deci­
sions is that restriction, either in size of the class, Miller 
V. International Paper Co., 408 F. 2d 283 (5th Cir. 1969); 
Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 433 F. 2d 421 
(8th Cir., 1970); or in the scone of relief to be accorded 
members of the class, Robinson v. P. Lori H ard Corp., 444 F. 2d 
791 (4th Cir. 1971); Bowe v. Colgate-Polmolive Co., 416 F. 2d 
711 (7th Cir. 1969); is incompatible with the broad remedial 
aims of Title VII. See also, Hackett v. McGuire Brothers, Inc. 
445 F. 2d 443 (3d Cir, 1971).

II
THE FACTS OF THIS CASE 
DICTATE THAT THE CLASS 
SHOULD BE ENLARGED

The basis for determination of the size of any class 
is, of course, a Careful analysis of the facts in any given 
case. Judge Lawrence indicated as much in his December 9, 1968 
Order.

[PlaintiffI...may be a proper reoresen- 
tative of a class comprised of all Negro 
employees of the defendant in all depart­
ments .... However, I shall make no determiriat- 
tion in that respect until I possess fuller 
factual insight into the operations and em­
ployment practices of Savannah Sugar Refining 
Company .... Generally, the specifications of 
class membership should be made by a court 
with more factual background before it than 
the complaint itself affords. 46 F.R.D. 59, 60.

Fm I hew, 'hi' Court, set out some of the facts which 
would reguiie re-examination of its order. "Other grievances,

Iadditional parties plaintiff or intervenors are [such] consider- I 
ations'.... 46 F.R.D. 60. JUf trial of this case, plaintiff will

!$(< c,
\ ' '

i



introduce verified copies of two additional charges of discrimi­
nation which were filed with the E.E.O.C. against this defen­
dant subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit. This is precisely 
tile kind of evidence the Court referred to in its Order, and a 
failure to consider that evidence would be plainly inconsistent 
with the terms of the Order.

boiler room will inevitably result in the filing of a second 
(and perhaps third) lawsuit by those individuals who have 
filed charges with E.E.O.C. Surely, this is what Rule 23 was 
designed to prevent -piecemeal litigation of claims readily 
susceptible to resolution in a single lawsuit. And if, in 
subsequent actions, the classes represented by plaintiffs are 
restricted to their own departments, the anomalous result could 
well be that some departments would be operating under injunc­
tion designed to afford blacks the opportunity to enjoy the 
same employment advantages enjoyed by their white brothers, 
while other departments would operate as before. Surely, this 
result is a triumph of form over substance.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff respectfully 

urges that his Motion to Enlarge the Class be granted.

Restriction of the class to those employees in the

HILL,JONES,& FARRINGTON
208 East Thirty-Fourth Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

BY:
Fletcher Farrington

JACK GREENBERG 
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON 
MORRIS J. BALLER

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

l



- 6 -

ROBERT BELTON
Whitehouse Inn
237 West Trade Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

KENNETH L. JOHNSON
Suite 1500 American Building 
Baltimore and South Streets 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Tttorneys for Plaintiff



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this date served 
•John Simpson, Esq., P. 0. Box 8426, Savannah, Georgia 31402,
{i and J. Lewis Sapp, Esq., attorneys for defendant, with copies 
! of the foregoinq Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of his Motion 
( To Enlarge the Class, by placing them in the United States mail 
ijwith adequate postage thereon to assure delivery.

This 20th day of May, 1972.

1 i I



c
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

, FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
______  SAVANNAH DIVISION

ADAM BAXTER, 

VERSUS
Plaintiff

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINING 
CORPORATION,

Defendant
\

CIVIL ACTION'NO. 2304

(

c

c -p

/Transcript of trial in the above case taken before the Honorable 
Anthony A. Alaimo in the United States District Court on May 29th 
and 30th, 1972, in Savannah, Georgia.____________________

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff:

For the Defendant:

U. S.'DISTRICT COURT 
Southern District of Ga« 

Filed in office

_ _ JAN .3... !
Deputy Cleris^^

Fletcher Farrington
Attorney at Law
Hill, Jones & Farrington
Savannah, Georgia

Bobby L. Hill 
Attorney at Law 
Hill, Jones & Farrington 
Savannah, Georgia

Kenneth L. Johnson 
Attorney at Law 
Baltimore, Maryland

John E. Simpson 
Attorney at Lav/
Miller, Beckman & Simpson 
Savannah, Georgia 31402

John L. Sapp 
Attorney at Law 
Constangy & Prowell 
Atlanta, Georgia 30003

- 1 -



INDEX

WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRE
t

Miss Terry Roney 6 15 21

Mr. Johnny Eaxter 22 35 39

M1 Frank King 40 52 62

Mr . George Buckins \ 66 83

Mr. Summer Walla ce 88 99 104

Mr. Adam Baxter 105 142 280

M r . Kenneth L. Johnson 154 160

Mr. Fletcher Farrington 166 174

Mr. Walter F. Oetgen 186 210 230

Mr. Oswald E. Grebenburg 235 242 243

Mr. Charles B. Ecksley 245 250

Mr. Joseph W. Albarino 2 53 1

M r . Robert L. Sprague 261 265

Mr. John E. Simpson 268 271

Mr. Louis Sapp 277

RECROSS

231

- 2 -



JUDGE ALAIMO: Good Morning. Well, it appears like we're going to
/
jbe a little hot this morning. The air conditioning is broken 

I down, and if it gets unbearable, we'll just recess later on 

into the Grand Jury Room where I understand the air condition­

ing is functioning. I call the case of Adam Baxter, Plaintiff 

against Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, Number 2304. On 

behalf of the Plaintiff, Mr. Farrington?

MR. FARRINGTON: Yes, for the record, Your Honor, I am Fletcher 

Farrington. Co-counsel, which I would like now to present to 

the Court, is Kenneth L. Johnson of Baltimore, Maryland, a 

member of the Louisiana, Maryland, and District of Columbia 

Bar, and a member of the United States District Court Bar for 

the District of Maryland.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Glad to have you, Mr. Johnson.

MR. FARRINGTON: Also, I have with me my law partner, Mr. Bobby 

L. Hill.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Good morning, Mr. Hill.

MR. HILL: Good morning, Judge.

MR. FARRINGTON: The Plaintiff is ready, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: On behalf of the Defendant?

MR. SIMPSON:' John E. Simpson, Miller, Beckman & Simpson of Savan­

nah. Your Honor, I think I have introduced you to him before,

but I present again, Mr. James L. Sapp.
\

JUDGE ALAIMO: Good morning, Mr. Sapp.

MR. SIMPSON: Whose firm is Constangy and Prowell in Atlanta. The



IMR. SIMPSON: (Cont'd) Defendant is ready, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: I understand that all exhibits have been numbered,

| and I assume that the ones that are numbered, there's not going 

to be any objections to any of them?

MR. FARRINGTON: No, sir.

MR. SIMPSON: No, sir.

JUDGE ALAIMO: How many witnesses do we have for the Plaintiff?

Let me put it another way. How long is it going to take you 

to put up your case, Mr. Farrington?

MR. FARRINGTON: I think less than a- day.. I think we should finish 

sometime around two or three o'clock.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. How do you feel about it, Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I don't know how long the Plaintiff's

case will take. I would think that the Defendant's case will 

take certainly a full day, so I would . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: That's about the same as we were talking about.

MR. SIMPSON: I would think, Your Honor, the case will take at 

least two days and may well go on into the third.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Thank you very much. All right, you may 

proceed for the Plaintiff. Do you desire to make an opening 

statement, Mr. Farrington?

MR. FARRINGTON: No, Your Honor. We have just filed a pre-trial 

brief which will open - which is our opening statement.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Do you care to make a statement, Mr. 

Simpson, at this time?

-4-



MR. SIiMPSON: Your Honor, we have just received the pre-trial brief 

a few minutes ago, and so we have no response to his pre-trial 

brief. I have no opening statement at this time.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Well, let's swear the witnesses. Would 

you call them on behalf of the Plaintiff, Mr. Farrington?

MR. FARRINGTON: Would the following people stand up: Miss Roney, 

Johnny Baxter, Frank King, William Field, Frank Sutton, Summer 

Wallace, James Jacobs, Adam Baxter?
!i

MARSHALL: As your name is called, come around, please.

MR. FARRINGTON: Mr. Johnson and I will also testify very shortly, 

so we perhaps should be sworn too.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right, Mr. Simpson. Are any of the Defendant's

witnesses here?

MR. SIMPSON: No, sir. I knew my witnesses wouldn't be coming for 

several hours.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

NOTE: All witnesses present were sworn at this time.

JUDGE ALAIMO: You witnesses, would you please turn? Remember,
|'

you're not to discuss - just a moment. Would you come back up ,
Ij

here, please? You are instructed not to discuss your testimony
l!with any other witness or any other person saving counsel for
ij

either side. Do not with each other or anybody else discuss
il

your testimony in this case.

NOTE: The witnesses were sequestered to the hall at this time.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, Mr. Scott just reminded me. I would like

........ .. ..........._ .... ...M G * -  .... ........... J
-5-



MR.
f

5IMPS0N: (Cont'd) to present Mr. Walter C. Scott who is Vice

(President and Secretary of Savannah Sugar. He is also an 

attorney. He will sit as representative for the Defendant
I
throughout the trial. He just reminded me that perhaps I 

should explain his presence.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Glad to have you, Mr. Scott. All right, proceed, 

Mr. Farrington.

MR. FARRINGTON: Miss Roney.

^  '

1 )

MISS TERRY RONEY TOOK THE STAND, AMD HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, 

TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT

EXAMINATION OF HISS RONEY EY MR. FARRINGTON:

Q. Would you state your name, please?

A. Terry Roney.

Q. What is your occupation, Miss Roney?

A. I am a Research Analyst for Hill, Jones, and Farrington.

Q. How long have you been so employed?

A. Since January.

Q. What is your educational background?

A. I have "attended Armstrong and Georgia Southern Colleges.

Q. What was your major?

A. English.
\

Q. What did you do prior to becoming a Research Analyst?

A. I was a case worker aide for the Family and Children Service
___________ ______________________.

-6-



Would you explain briefly what your duties are as a Research
i 1Analyst?

I do all the filing in the Legal Library, and I do all the 

research work that the attorneys need for any of the Civil 

Rights cases, Jury Discrimination, Public Housing, and mostly 

Title Seven cases.

You have performed this responsibility in the case we are now 
\

presenting, Baxter against Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation? 

Yes.

Would you explain to the Court generally what you did in this 

case?

I took the Defendant's answers to interrogatories where they 

listed the job clsssifications and the various wages for these 

job classifications with the total number of employees, both 

black and white, and I came up with a record of - showing the 

comparison of black and white employees.

Now, I show you what has been marked for identification as 

Plaintiff's Exhibits Five through Ten and ask you to identify 

those, please?

These are.the - these are the ones that I did on - they're the 

employees and segregated and total job classifications with 

their rates and hourly rates and their average weekly earnings. 

For what years?

For 1965, 1971, and 1966.

In other words, you have one group of documents for only



I

Q. (Cont'd) employees working in segregated job classifications, 

.and then one for all employees regardless of where they work?
/fA . jYes.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Let me ask you right at this point, and you'll have 

to forgive me because throughout the case, I'm going to ask 

questions when they arise in my mind because I'm going to be 

deciding the case. Where did you arrive at the conclusion that 

some of these jobs are segregated?

A. For each year, they listed the total number of employees in a 

particular job, and each year, they were all white . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: So then you concluded - you classified that as

segregated. All right, I understand. In other words, this is 

a classification on your part based upon the fact that they 

happened to be all white or all black, is this correct?

A . That's right.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.
Q. Did you - you prepared these Exhibits Five through Ten?

A. Yes.
Q. Are they correct to the best of your knowledge?

A. Yes.

Q. We have also filed this morning with the Court a pre-trial

brief which contains a number of statistics. Did you have any 

responsibility for the compilation of those statistics?

A. Yes. I got those from going over these, and I came up with 

those statistics.

- 8
d



o

o

Q. Which Exhibits exactly did you get the information from?

A. I From Exhibits Five through Ten.

Q. I No. Which Defendant's Exhibits?
/

A. Oh, from the Defendant's answers to interrogatories, number 

Forty-Two, from their list of promotions, number Thirty-Five, 
and hires.

JUDGE ALAIMO: In other words, these statistics that are cited 

here in your statement of facts were all readings from docu­

ments furnished by the Defendant?

A, Right. •

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

Q. Do you have a copy of that brief with you?

A . No.

NOTE: The witness was handed a copy of brief.

Q. Okay. I ask you to turn to page two, for example, You - or 

the statistics state - the brief states seventy-five job 

classifications in which five hundred and five persons were
|ipermanently employed, seventy-three were racially segregated 

with forty-two having only white employees and thirty-one 

only black employees. Will you explain where - how you got-
ii

came up with that figure and where, please?

A. All of the classifications specified the total number of employees

and then total number of black employees, and from this, I
\

concluded which ones were all white jobsl 

Q. And what number Exhibit - Defendant's Exhibit - did this come
..  ........ .....J!

- 9 -



Q. (Cont'd) from?

A. Number Forty-Two, answers to interrogatories.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Was this Exhibit Forty-Two?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In each case, where you refer to a segregated job classifica-
/

/tion or an integrated job classification, you got the informa­

tion in the same manner that you just explained?

a/. Yes.
1 '
JUDGE ALAIMO: Miss Roney, did you find anything in any of those 

documents furnished to you by the Defendant that per se said 

that they were all Negro or all white?

A . No.

JUDGE ALAIMO: This is a conclusion you came to from the facts you 

obtained from these documents?

A. Yes. /

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

Q. On page three, beginning with the last paragraph and continuing 

on, you talk about hires and promotions. Where did you get, or 

from which Defendant's Exhibits, did the numbers of persons 

hired and- promoted come from?

A. The hires is from Number Thirty-Six, and the promotions is from 

Number Thirty-Five.

JUDGE ALAIMO: I didn't hear that.

A. The hires is from Number Thirty-Six, and the promotions is from 

Thirty-Five.
.. /7c)o_ ,,..

- 10 - *



o

MR. SAPP: Your Honor, at this point, I would like to interpose
i I

an objection to any further testimony by the witness as to what

the various documentary exhibits show, and further, her giving

any conclusions' as to what the documents themselves show.

While I think this is certainly a proper matter of argument

for counsel to the Court in briefs and oral argument, I do

suggest that this witness has not been qualified as an expert 
. , \to draw any conclusions and, in fact, convey the providence of 

the Court when she starts speaking of segregated job classifi­

cations, and the conclusions to be arrived at from the evidence 
in the case.

JUDGE ALAIHO: Well, Mr. Sapp, if this were a Jury case, I would be 

inclined to kind of go along with you, but here she's giving 

me summaries and she's swearing to the accuracy of the sum­

maries, and it's going to be of some assistance to me. I 

realize they are conclusions. That's why I asked her the 

questions that I did, and I may come to an opposite conclusion 

from what she has, but she's given me the basis for it, and I'm 

going to allow her to testify.

MR. SAPP: Well, I think our point is, Your Honor, that her conclu- 

sion as to what any of these documentary exhibits show is no 

better than what I may get from someone that I went outside 

right now and got off the street and brought them up and said 

“Would you read through these and testify to the Court as to 

what they show in your opinion?" The opinion she's given is
( 7 / a ~

- 11-



(

MR. SAPP: (Cont'd) strictly a lay opinion on her part.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, it's not lay if she's said that she found that 

there were seventy-five employees in a job classification, and 

they were all black according to your record.

MR. SAPP: But as to any opinion she may give as to whether it's 

segregated and . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: I understand, and I agree with you that that would 

be a conclusion on her part. I agree with that, but I am going 

to just take that for whatever it's worth. I'm looking at the 

subsidiary data that she gives, and I'm listening to this, and 

it is of some assistance to me right now. These will be 

changed.

Q. Miss Roney, you spent some sixty hours working on this case,

haven't you?

A. Yes.

JUDGE ALAIMO: How many hours?

A. About sixty.

JUDGE ALAII-IO: About sixty? Did you keep her time records, Mr. 

Farrington?

Q. No. I made her keep them. I have no further questions.

JUDGE ALAIMO: I wish to make an observation. You will have in 

substance her summaries, and I'm sure that if there are any 

inaccuracies, you will help me on that.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, v/e prepared the schedule, and we are 

familial* with them.

/ 7 A < ^  - ~ r - „ -  ,
- 12 -

i



JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

r:\

MR. FARRINGTON: One other thing, Your Honor. I would like at this 

time to offer into evidence the Exhibits Five through Ten.

JUDGE ALAIMO: It's my understanding that there are no objections 

to these Exhibits that are already numbered.

MR. FARRINGTON: Right, but I would like to physically get them in.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Let them be admitted without objection.

NOTE: Plaintiff's Exhibits Five through Ten, having been previously

marked, were admitted without objection.

HR. FARRINGTON: And if I might at this time, just to get it off my 

table, offer Exhibits One through Four.

JUDGE ALAIMO: First of all, let me see - Five through Ten are

going to show the substance of the witness's testimony to this 

point?

MR. FARRINGTON: That's correct.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Now, what does One through Four show?

HR. FARRINGTON: One through Four. Well, One, Two and Four are 

affidavits from other attorneys who have worked on the case 

and simply a statement of our expenses.

JUDGE ALAIMO: You didn't start out with that. Usually, lawyers

wait till the very end to impress you with all the work they've 

done, and then they give you these affidavits.

MR. FARRINGTON: Well, I'm really not trying to impress you.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Any objections?

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I think we might very well stipulate now

-13-
*



MR. SIMPSON: (Cont'd) that all of the Exhibits, both the Plaintiff's

and the Defendant's, are admissible into evidence.

JUD<£E' ALAIMO: Are admitted into evidence?
I .MR. SIMPSON: Admitted into evidence.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Let it be so shown by the record. Nov;,

how many were there? I assume that the Reporter has them.

MR. FARRINGTON: We have ten, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Ten Exhibits? Nov;, how many does the Defendant have? 

COURT REPORTER: Forty-two, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Forty-two Exhibits?

COURT REPORTER: Yes, sir.

JUDGE ALAIMO:

submitted 

MR. SIMPSON: 

JUDGE ALAIMO:

Mr. Simpson, the Reporter tells me that you have

Forty-two Exhibits.

That's correct, Your Honor.

All right. All the Exhibits then are admitted into

evidence by agreement of the parties.

NOTE: Plaintiff's Exhibits Numbers One through Ten and Defendant's

Exhibits Numbers One through Forty-Two admitted into evidence 

without objection.

i

JUDGE ALAIMO: I want you to state the substance that you say these 

affidavits show.

MR. FARRINGTON: The affidavits are from Mr. Hill who originally 

started to try this case. Mr. Hill is win the legislature.

They simply set forth his qualifications, the kind of cases he' 

worked on, and the number of hours he's been on the case.

s

-14- *



J  'JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. How many hours does it show?
I

MR.I FARRINGTON: I believe Mr. Hill spent eighty-five point five 

I hours. The affidavit for Mr. Robert Belton also contains tte
I

same kind of information. I believe he spent - Mr. Belton 

spent sixty-three point two hours.

JUDGE ALAIHO: All right.

MR. FARRINGTON: Mr. Johnson and I will testify at some later time. 

JUDGE ALAIMO: In other words, it's not contained in these affi­

davits?

MR. FARRINGTON: Right.

JUDGE ALAIMO:. All right. All right, Mr. Sapp.

EXAMINATION OF MISS RONEY BY MR. SAPP:

Q. Miss Roney, where did you graduate from college?

A. I haven't graduated.

Q. How many years of college do you have?

A. Three years.

Q. So when you say you majored in English, that's just your intend 

ed major. You haven't received your degree yet, is that 

correct?

l;|j
jj

!n
i'i

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And prior to going to work for the law firm of Hill, Jones and
\

Farrington, you were employed by the Family and Welfare Services 

of the State of Georgia?

i
-15-



A. Yes, sir.
Q. And have you ever been employed anywhere else?

A. Yes.

Q. Where?

A. I worked for the City of Savannah.

Q. Doing what?

A. In the Recreation Committee.

Q. And how old are you?

A. I am twenty-five.

Q. Have you ever testified in court in the same capacity in which 

you are appearing today, as a Research Analyst?

A. Yes.

Q. In how many cases did you appear?

A. Before?

Q. Yes.

A. One.

Q. And what was that case?
A. That as a Jury Discrimination, and it was for an armed robbery 

case in Coluaibus, Georgia.

Q. Did you ever appear in a case in which there was racial dis­
crimination in employment being alleged by the Plaintiff’s?

A. No.
Q. So this is the first and only Title Seven case in which you've

testified? 

A. Yes.

- 16-

i



Q. And have you received any formal instruction as to analyzing 

employment information?

A. Yes.

Q. From v/here?

A. From Fletcher Farrington.

Q. Have you ever attended any courses in any colleges, universities, 

or schools with respect to analyzing employment information?

A. Not specifically, no.

Q. Have you ever been - you never have been employed by the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission in any investigatory capacity, 

have you?

A . N o .

Q. Have you ever visited the Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation 

facility at Port VJentworth?

A . N o . -
Q. Nov;, you’ve never been on Savannah Sugar property out at Port 

Wentworth, is that correct?

A. Yes.
Q. Nov;, are you familiar with the manner in which sugar is pro­

cessed and the various job classifications that are required
i!

to process sugar?

A. From what I have gathered from the information that you had in 

your Exhibits.

Q. But you personally have never been on the scene where sugar is 

being processed, is that correct?

.. ........... ..... . .. / 7 7 * _

-17-
___

i



A. Yes.
I 1Q. So are you at all familiar or have any knowledge as to what 

the particular duties are that are involved in performing the 

various job classifications out at the sugar refinery?

A . No.

A.

Q.

Now, are you receiving compensation from anyone for testifying

here :today?
\Specifically for testifying?

Yes. Your time you are spending in court today?

I don't know if that's included or not.

Do you expect to be paid for your time you've spent here today 

in court?

A. I'm really not sure if that's included.

Q. So you may well . . .

A. I'm just not aware - not familiar with it.

Q. Do you intend to turn your time into Mr. Farrington for the time 

you've spent in court today?
liA. I guess I will.

Q. What is your regular rate of compensation for appearing and

testifying in court?
.

A. My pay'is four dollars an hour as a Research Analyst.
i t

, I
Q. As a Research Analyst, you get paid four dollars an hour?

A. Yes.
. I

Q. And would that be the amount that you expect to receive for 

the work you've done in this with Adam Baxter?

-13-
*



A.

Q.

A.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Yes, sir.
i iAnd that' s the irate at which you have been paid during the 

entire time you have been investigating the Adam Baxter case?

Yes, sir.

Nov/, do you have any - is your pay from Mr. Farrington contingent 

upon the results of this lav/ suit - whether or not the Plaintiff

loses: the law suit?
. . \No.

Nov/, are you employed at any other place than with Hill, Jones 

and Farrington?

No.

When did you_ leave the employment of the State or Chatham 

County when you were working Welfare work?

In April.

April of this year?

Yes.

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.

A.

Q.

Nov/, you testified that you went to work for Hill, Jones and
■I

■

Farrington, and you said in January of 1972?

That’s right.

So you were employed in both places from January through April?

Yes. '

Are you - or do you consider yourself a full-time of Hill,

Jones and Farrington?
*

Yes.

And what is your rate of pay with Hill, Jones and Farrington?

-19-
d



(

f ‘

A.

Q.

Q.

A.

Q

I get paid according-to the cases I'm working on at four
• ldollars an hour.

Four dollars an hour. Do you work forty-eight hours a week 

for that?

Not necessarily.

Nov;, what was the date on which you went to work for them

full-time?
. . \I am not sure of the exact date, but it v/as right after I quit 

Family and Welfare Services.

Would it have been the first part of April or the last part of 

April, or when would it have been?

Well, the middle of April.

And you have not been employed at any other place but Hill,

Jones and Farrington since that time?

A . No.
Q. Now, were you subpoenaed to testify here today?

A . N o .’
ll

Q. You are voluntarily appearing, is that correct?
j«
IIA. Yes.

Q. Your Honor/ could I have just a moment?

JUDGE ALAIliO: Yes, sir.
■ >iQ. I don't have anything further, Your Honor.

MR. FARRINGTON: I have one question.

( '<Y _  <

..ft! <2L
i



REDIRECT

E •UNATION OF MISS RONEY BY MR. FARRINGTON:

Q. ! You sometimes work more than forty-eight, hours a week, don't 

you?

A. Much more.

Q. Okay. No further questions.

NOTE: The witness withdrew from the stand.

MR. FARRINGTON: Your Honor, I would like to request that Miss 

Roney be allowed to stay in the courtroom.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Any objection, Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I would object if she is going to be 

recalled.

MR. FARRINGTON: We don't have anything further from her.

JUDGE ALAIMO: In other words, she's excused as a witness? ;

MR. FARRINGTON: Yes, sir.

MR. SIMPSON: Yes, well then, she's a spectator. That would be 

all right.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

MR. FARRINGTON: Call Johnny Baxter.
\  ' v

JUDGE ALAIMO: Any relationship between . . .

MR. FARRINGTON: Yes, there sure is. A lot of the class at

Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation are relatives. Excuse us

Your Honor. We were just discussing among ourselves, and it 

appears there may be some necessity for us to call Miss Roney



...-  ■MR. ^FARRINGTON: (Cont'd) back. I would request that she be
I

/allowed to stay in the courtroom, because all she does is count 

| figures up. I don't see how in the world . . .

M R . SIMPSON: Your Honor, I could not do that. I don't know what 

questions they may be asking . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: Yes, I think we better sequester the witness so 

that there will be no questions arising about it.

NOTE: Miss Roney was sequestered at this time.

V -

MR. JOHNNY BAXTER TOOK THE STAND, AND HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN, 

TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

DIRECT

EXAMINATION OF MR. BAXTER BY MR. FARRINGTON: 

Q. State your name, please?

A. My name is Johnny Baxter.

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Baxter?

A. I live at 219 Main Street, Garden City. 

Q. Are you related to Adam Baxter?

A. Yes.

Q. What's the relationship?

A. Brothers.

Q. Where do you work, Mr. Baxter?

A. Savannah Sugar Refining. ' ,
\

Q. How long have you been out there?

A. Twenty-five years this year.

l



Q. What’s your job classification?

A. I am a Laborer.

Q. Pardon me.

A. Laborer.

Q. How far did you go in school?

A. Eighth grade.
Q. How did you get your job at Savannah Sugar?

A. Well, I came out there a couple of mornings, and one afternoon, 

I was hired.
Q. You just sought the employment yourself? You didn't hear' about 

the job?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. What was the first job you were assigned to?

A. I was assigned to packing two-pound bags in a sixty-pound bag 

package, a gold pack.
Q. How long did you stay on that job?
A. Oh, I stayed on that job around a couple of years, I imagine.

Q. And then where did you go from there?

A. From there, I went on the floor bringing in supplies, reliev­

ing.
Q. Is that'what you refer to as a Laborer's job?

A. Yes.
Q. And how long have you been a Laborer?

A. Ever since I was there.
Q. Well, with the exception of the two years that you we re pack-

23
*



Q. (Cont'd) ing?
A. I was always a Laborer. The two years I was packing I was 

still a laborer.
Q. What is your job classification? What does the company call 

the kind of work you do?

A. They would say a Laborer, because I operate a machine, but 

they would say a Laborer.

JUDGE ALAIMO: What does he do?

A. I run a machine.

JUDGE ALAIMO: What kind of machine?

A. A ten "x" machine; put out a one-pound box.

JUDGE ALAIMO: How long have you been operating that machine?

A. I was operating,that machine for two years now.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right, for the last two years. What did you do 

before that?
A. Well, I was transferred from one job to another. I worked on 

the floor awhile . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: What do you mean by working on the floor?

A. Well,.-when you work on the floor like that, you bring in 

supplies, and you relieve the man who work on the machine.

JUDGE ALAIMO: In other words, you learn to operate most of the 

machines so that if some man had to go to the rest room or 

may have to be out for an hour or so, you could relieve him?

A. Yes.
JUDGE ALAIMO: How many different kinds of machines do you operate

-24- *



A. Since I was there?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Yes.
A. I operate a ten-pound packer. From the ten-pound packer, I 

operate - I have operate just about all the machines but not 

permanent.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. As a relief operator?

A. Yes.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.
Q. As I understand it, Mr. Baxter, there are three job classifi­

cations in the Packing Room, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. What are they?
■ i 1

A. One of them is Operator, Floor Chief and . . .

Q. Packer . . .

A. . . .. Packer.
JUDGE ALAIMO: Any white Operators run these machines on which you 

Packers relieve?

A. No.
JUDGE ALAIMO: All of them are black Operators?

A. All are black.

Q. Okay. How about Oxoerators? Were there any white Operators ?

A. Yes. We have a white Operator.

Q. Are there any black Operators?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me back up just - I think I know the question
c

the Court

-25-
i



Q. (Cont'd) asked. Packers actually operate the machines, but

they are not called Operators?

A . Right.
t

Q. Operators also operate other machines. They're called Opera­

tors. The difference is one - or has been - one is a white 

/ job and one is a black job.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I must object to this. The counsel for
/ - 'I Plaintiff is testifying now, Your Honor, and I think he has to 

ask him a question.

JUDGE ALAIHO: Yes, he is. Nov/, I mean, aside from your state­

ment, let's get the evidence out.

Q. How long have whites been in the .Operator's job? I'm sorry. 

How long have blacks been in the Operator's job?

A. Operator?

Q . Right.

A. Since - I don't know exaictly.

Q. Okay. Which is the . . .

JUDGE ALAI240: Let me see if we can't get some definitions here. 

Now, Operator - I take it to mean a person who is in charge 

of running a machine. Do you call him an Operator?

A. Yes.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Now - and you run a machine?

A. Yes, I run a machine.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Is there any Operator or person who runs a machine 

out there that is white?

-26- 11



A. No. What - how they'do is - Operator, he don't run the
i i

machine. They don't call him a Machine Operator. He is called 

a Operator. He sees or oversees. The man who run the machine,
t

he be called a Laborer because he gets a Laborer's pay.

Q. Operators . . .
JUDGE ALAIMO: Let me develop just a minute. Nov/, an Operator then 

/' really doesn't run a machine, does he? He just supervises. 

ij.. ■ No. Supervise, right.
JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. ..Well, that's the confusion in this whole 

thing. When you talk about an Operator, you're talking about 

something different from what the word connotes.

Q. That - it is a word of art as used at Savannah Sugar Refining 

Corporation?

A. Right.
JUDGE ALAIMO: You've never worked then as an Operator, is that 

right?

A. Yes.
JUDGE ALAIMO: A Relief Operator?

A. Yes. I earn a Relief Operator - yes.

JUDGE ALAIMO': Well, then you have done a job in supervising a
\  ' v

machine that whites have done, haven't you?

A. Yes.
JUDGE ALAIMO: Yes.
Q. When you say you relieve, you mean you relieve the supervisor? 

A. Black. See, how they operate - it's kind of difficult unless
l?7&~

-27- *



A. (Cont'd) I'm going to explain it to you. If they move a white 
from Operator, this job become a black job. He have to do

two-thirds more work then when that white was there. The

white only supervise. When a black become Operator, he has

two-thirds more work to do. He have to do . . .

JUOC-E ALAIMO: In what way?
/A 1 The white will have a Helper when he goes Operator. When a 

/ black takes over, he don't have no help.

JUDGE ALAIMO: He does the work of the Operator and the Helper too? 

A. Right, and more too adds on.

Q. You are saying then that there is a difference in the Operator 

as filled by white employees and when it is filled by black

employees?

A . Right.
Q. How about Floor Chief? There ever been any black Floor Chiefs? 

JUDGE ALAIMO: Now, first of all, get him to define what a Floor- 

Chief is, you know, so we'll know what we're talking about.

Q. Okay. What is a Floor Chief?
A. A Floor Chief is something like an assistant to a Foreman, and

the Foreman will give him orders, and he will deliver it to the
•j

other employees.

Q. Is the Floor Chief above the Operator?
\

A. Yes.
Q. Now, is that - has that been a black job or a white job?

A. Well, they have been a black - a white job, but what happened,

. .  . , r  / & ? < * -

- 2 3 -



A. (Cont'd) they only "made a black Floor Chief after they moved
l \

the Assistant Foreman which v/as white. There won't be no more 

Assistant Foreman because a black take over, and he be called 

Floor Chief.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Hr. Baxter, let me ask you this. What d'o you mean 

by a black job?

a /. Well, it's just like black schools and white schools. Once a 
\

blade takes over, well them whites moves out. That's what I 

mean by black job.

JUDGE ALAIMO: What do you mean when you say a black job?

A. Well, because you don't have no whites do that no more.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Only black people do the job, is that 

right?

A . Right.

JUDGE ALAIMO: What do you mean by white job?

A. Well, a white job they have all white. They have a particular

job.
JUDGE ALAIMO: Do blacks ever do that job that you call a white 

job?

A. No, not 'in the Packing Department.
\  ' v

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Now, I've gotten the terms.

Q. Are there any women in the Packing Department?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Are they - what are their jobs? What do they do? 

A. They work on envelope machines, and also wrap counter machine,
m m . .

- 2 9 -



A. (Cont'cl) and also they run five-pound machines and also two

and ten.
Q. !so these women are Packers running the machines, is that cor­

rect?

A. Yes, they call them - they call them Machines. That's all. 

They don't have no permanent name.

JUDGE ALAIMO: They're not called Packers?

Q. Your Honor, I believe that those jobs are referred^to by the 

name of the machine.

A. Right.

Q. As I recall from our Exhibits - I mean the company's Exhibits 

I believe they were referred to by the machine they're working 

on.
JUDGE ALAIMO: In other words, if the machine is a packer, they're 

called a Packer Employee or a Packer Operator? ;

Q. No, sir. If they're working on a Four "X" machine, the job 

category is Four "X" Ma- - Four "X".

A. That's right, Four "X".
Q. Any black— any white women operate these machines?

A . No.
x ' NQ. Would you describe this as a hard job?

A. Yes, it is.
Q. Do you know whether or not there are .any black women who work

as secretaries or clerical personnel at . .

A . No.

-30-
*



MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object to that question. The trial of

JUDGE A I MO: Well, it may not be an issue, but it might be

indicative of a company-wide policy, which I think they're 

bringing into play in this case. I'm not saying it does, but

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I just wanted to make my objection for 

the record.
JUDGEMALAIMO: All right. Well, for that reason, I overrule the

objection,. Mr. Simpson.

Q. Do they have a front office out at the plant?

A. Yes. They have office.

Q. Do they have people in there typing?

A. Yes.
Q. Do they have any black people in there typing?

A. No.
JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, you haven't shown his familiarity with the 

office. He doesn't work there, does he?

Q. Are you required - do you go into this office occasionally?
'

A. I don't go into it, but I pass by it.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor . . .

Q. Have you observed . . .
MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object. I-le's not competently qualified 

as to the secretary department.

it would certainly tend to show that, if that's the case.

- 31-



JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, all right then, why go into something that he 

really doesn't know?

Q. Have you ever requested a promotion, Mr. Baxter?

A. Yes, I have.

Q. When did you request a promotion?

A. I request for a promotion two years ago.

Q. And where did you request to be promoted to?

A. As an Operator on the Four "X" and the Ten "X".

Q. Did you receive that promotion?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. You have been out there twenty-five years?

A. Yes, I have.

JUDGE ALAIi-iO: Was that a Four "X" machine, did you say?

A. Yes. Four "X" and Ten "X", all that combined . . .

Q. Was there a job - was there a vacancy in this particular job 

you wanted to go to?

A. Yes, there was.

Q. How did you learn of the vacancy?

A. Because I worked there.

Q. Is there any way that you can find out about other vacancies 

as they occur in the plant?

A. No.
Q. Does the company have any method for notifying employees of 

job openings?

A. No.

-32-



Q. Has it ever notified' employees of job openings?
i \

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object to that question. He's not

competent to testify as to whether the company has ever notified 

anybody.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, to his knowledge. He could testify to his

 ̂ )GE ALAIMO: But, you know; you don't know, is that right? You

don't know if there . .. .

A. I was there for twenty-five years. I should know.

JUDGE ALAIi-IO: Well, I say - how did you know that there was a 

vacancy in this Four "X" and Ten ."X" machine?

A. Because I work there.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well . . .

Q. You mean you work in that department?

A. In that department. A Mouth Loading Machine because I was a 

reliever there.

Q. And you knew the man who quit?

A. Yes.
Q. What system does the company use, if it uses one, to grant

\  -
promotions?

A. The system that they use - they pick the man who is put in the 

position. Black.

Q. Who does the piclcing?

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object to this. I don't think this

SIMPSON: All right.



MR. SIMPSON: (Cont'd) witness is qualified to say who selects

promotions.

JUDGE AIAIMO: I would have to sustain the objection. Make him

show what happens with pc- - you know - he shouldn't say that, 

Q. May I speak to that just a moment, Your Honor?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Sure.

Q j We are attempting to show that there is no system at all. 

jjjDGE ALAIMO: That there is no system?

Q. That there is no system.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, I mean, that isn't what he testified to, but 

is it your contention that there is no system?

Q . That is correct.

JUDGE ALAIMO: There no system of promotion or no em of job

classification?

Q. Well, they do have job classifications, but there is no - there 

are no really strict lines of progression in the sense that we 

usually run into. Our point is that there is no systematic 

way of granting promotions. The line of progression thing 

doesn't bother us.

JUDGE ALAIMO5 . No systematic method of promotions?
'VN. * vQ. That is our contention. Is there a systematic method of grant­

ing promotions that you know of?

A . N o .

Q. Nov/ at one time, were the rest room and eating facilities out 

there segregated by race?
/ f i f e .

-34-
i



A. Yes.
Q. Are they segregated today?

A. Not in the users facilities, not as I know.

JUDGE ALAIMO: I didn't quite understand you.

Q. Would you repeat the answer for the Judge, please sir?

A./ Not in the users facilities, not as I know.

Q t When did they become desegregated?
/ • • 'A. Oh, after 19G0.
Q. After I960. In 1964, did the company advise you that either 

the locker rooms or jobs would no longer be segregated?

A. No.
Q. They never told you anything like, that?

A. No.
Q. Do black and white workers use the same rest room facilities 

today?

A. Yes.

Q. They do?

(A- Yes.
Q. No-.further questions.

EXAMINATION OF MR. BAXTER BY MR. SIMPSON:

Q. Mr. Baxter, talking about the locker room assignments, you re­

call,, do you not, that the locker rooms were all assigned on 

the basis of seniority?

CROSS

-35-



A . N o .
Q. You don’t recall that? Weren't you assigned a locker?

A. Yes.
Q . And there were whites in your locker room as well as blacks

were there not?/

A./ Yes.
Q /■ You are Adam Baxter's brother, the Plaintiff in this case?

Q. In your work experience out there, you'd had misunderstandings 

from time to time with some of your supervisors, have you not? 

A. Yes.
Q. You've had misunderstandings with Louis Ivey who is a Foreman,

is a Foreman, have you not?

A. Yes.
Q. When you spoke about not getting the job two years ago, didn't 

Mr. Bersijay and Mr. Blackwelder explain to you that the reason 

why you didn't get the job was because of your attitude?

A. Yes..

Q. Do you agree with that?

A. No.
Q. Why do you think you didn't get the job?

A. Because I was black.

Q. Because you were black. All right, Mr. Baxter, I am going to 

read to you from your personnel record which is identified as

\
A/. . Yes.

-36-



Q. (Cont'd) Defendant's Exhibit Number Two.

NOTE: Mr. Simpson reading from document marked as Defendant's

Q. "November 1, 1956: John Harris asked him to bring in a pallet 

of dark brown containers at 2:00 p.m. He said he was not going 

to do the three to eleven shifts work. He did not bring it up 

to the third floor. Every time you tell him something to do, 

he gives you some lip. August 4, 1S67: Johnny Baxter took 

off last Friday, August 4th, for his anniversay. He did not 

say anything to me about it. Just asked Samuel Pickins who 

was Operator on Ten "X" and Four "X" for the last two weeks. 

Signed Louis Ivey, Foreman. August 29, 1967: Johnny Baxter, 

this man took his birthday. He did not ask me or anyone else 

if he could have it. This same thing happened on his anniver­

sary. I asked him about it, and he said he would take it when 

he wanted to, whether it was convenient for the company or not. 

August 29, 1963: Asked for his birthday and anniversary 

Thursday and Friday to carry his boy to Florida so that he could 

register for college. I told him I could not give him time 

off as we were short of labor to run the Packing House. Arthur 

Jordan had told me not to give anyone time off for birthdays 

or anniversaries while this rush was on. He said he was going 

anyway, whether I give him time off or not. This is what he 

did. He did not come to work Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

He was warned by Mr. Bersijay that the next offense would

Exhibit Number Two.

-37- i



Q. (Cont'd) result in a layoff. April 27, 1970: Johnny Baxter

ias been on the job of Power Station Operator vacated by.Eddie 

Thornes. Claimed seniority rights of the three - but of tnc 

three applicants — but the work record", quote, ettitude poor, 

leadership capabilities questionable. Job opening given to 

Daniels based on better overall qualifications. Baxter given 

an opportunity to change shifts and become Station Operator 

Relief and number two man eligible for the next opening. Baxter

refused, thereby yielding this opportunity to Cleveland 

Weathers."
JUDGE ALAIiiO: "''-Was the person to whom that job was given white?

Q. Which is that, sir?

JUDGE ALAIHO: The job he applied for?

Q. Oh, the job was given to Daniels who is black.

JUDGE ALAIiiO: To Daniels who is blade?

Q. Yes, sir, and so was Weathers.
NOTE: M r . Simpson continues reading from document marked as

Defendant's Exhibit Number Two.
Q. Another complaint. "August 6, 1971: Harry Williams complains 

that Baxter threatened him and accused him of stealing on the 

job. Floor Chief warned Baxter against intimidation of other 

employees." Now, with a record like that, do you think that

you should be qualified for a promotion over people v/ho don c
\

have any remarks like this in their record?

A. They're lies.
m b  .

3 3- i



JUDGE AIAIi-IO: What Exhibit is that?Ti
Q.

I
Dennis Shavers, is he not?'

A. Yes.

)efendant Exhibit Number Two, Your Honor.

' nave tr relative e r r . : >loyed out the your

Mr. Baxter, you 

father-in-lav/ is

Q. And he's the Foreman of the Sanitation Crew?

A. Yes.

Q. You also have a brother-in-law, Dennis Shavers, Jr-, who's a 

Pipe Fitter, is that correct?.

A . Yq s .

Q. Do you have any other relatives out there?

A. I have a uncle-in-law and a brother.

Q. Have you ever asked for a transfer to another department?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. Now, when you were speaking earlier of the Floor Chiefs' in the 

Packing Department - there are four Floor Chiefs, are there not 

A. Yes.
Q. And two of them are black, is that correct?

A . Right.

Q. No further questions, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Four Floor Chiefs and two are black?

Q. Yes, sir.

REDIRECT

MR. BAXTER BY MR. FARRINGTON:
m

EXAMINATION OF



Then did those two blacks become Floor Chiefs?

A. /This year.
r\ w • This year?

A . Right.
Q. Before that time - before this,year, had there ever been any

black Floor Chiefs?

A. No.
Q. Do the black Floor Chiefs, to your knowledge, have the same 

responsibility in terms of area of the plant that they cover 

the white Floor Chiefs?

A. Yes. He have a certain area to cover same as the white, but 

they on different floors.

Q. Does he supervise any white employees? This black Floor Chief?

A. Black Floor Chief? No.

Q. Do you know of any black person in the plant who supervises 

white employees?

A . No.

Q. No further questions.

JUDGE ALAIMO: You may go down, Mr. Baxter.

NOTE: The witness withdrew from the stand.

MR. FARRINGTON: Frank King.

MR. FRANK KING TOOK THE STAND, AND HAVING BEEN DULY SHORN

TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

-40-



DIRECT

Q. ! Would you state your name, please.

A. Frank King.

Q. Where clo you live, Mr. K in g ?

A. 1504 Berchesto Street.

Q. Is that in Savannah?

A. Right.
Q. What is your occupation?

A. STov/?

Q . Right.
A. Right now, I'm driving a school bus.

Q. What is your educational background?

A. I finished the twelfth grade.

Q. Here in Savannah?

A. Right.
Q. Were you ever employed at Savannah Sugar Refining Corporat 

A. Right, fifteen years.

Q. And when did you leave there?

A. I left there in '68.
Q. Do you have any relatives still employed there?

A. Yes, sir, I do.
\Q. Who is that? \

A. My mother, brother, and wife.

Q. How did you first get your - how did you get your job at
o



Q. (Cont'd) Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation?
i i

A. My uncle asked for me a job.

Q. What was the first job you were assigned to?
t

A. The first job I was assigned to was in the White Sugar Ware­

house, where I stayed during the -whole time.

Q ./ What were you doing in the White Sugar Warehouse?

A f Well, I was storing bags.
/ ■ - 'Q. And what gob did you have when you left?

A. Still storing bags.

Q. Any white people doing the Ivind of work you were doing?

A . N o .

Q. Where - describe, if you can, the.jobs in the Warehouse Depart 

ruent and who held them, both black and white.

A. Well, you only had the Checker's job and all of the Checker 

jobs mainly were held by whites, and the rest out there were 

common laborers, were held by blacks.

JUDGE AIAIMO: What's a Checker job?

A. They check the sugar in the - they check the sugar in the car 

box.es and sacks are filled and count the sugar and . . .

JUDGE ALAIMOJ’ Count the boxes, you mean?
X  - v

A. The boxes and the bags.

Q. Do you knov; whether or not the Checker job paid more than the 

job you make?

A. Yes, .it did.

JUDGE ALAIMO: What is your job?

-42- i



A. What did I do?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Yes.

A. I caught sixty-pound bags of sugar coming off of a belt off 

the rollers into a truck and car boxes.

JUDGE ALAIi-IO: You carried the bags physically?

A. I had to catch them after they come - they come from a machine

and down a belt and they were hook up on rollers, and they roll 

them into car boxes and trailers, and I have to stack them and 

count them as they come up.

Q. Explain for us, if you will, what would happen when a new 

employee came into the department?

A. A new employee came into the department out there?

Q. Right. What job would he be assigned to?

A. Well, he would be assigned to the same type of work I was

doing unless he was a white. It1s like I say, the only type 

of work down there were for whites, they gave them the Checker's 

job. Negroes were the only ones got common labor work.

Q. Okay. You're saying then that newly-hired whites were assigned 

to those Checker jobs?
A. Right. That was the only thing down there that they did.

\  - ̂
Q. Do you recall when the last time was that that occurred before 

you left?
A. Well, the last time it occurred - really, I can't remember the 

exact - the last person I knew came in there was Gene Bryant, 

and I can't recall the exact date.



II

i

4i

Q. But you had been wording there several years?
i \

A. A long time.
Q. Did vou ever receive any promotion while you were at the plant?

A. None whatsoever.
Q. Do you feel that you were qualified to perform the Checker 

/ job?

A f Sure.
Q. Is it a very complicated job as far as you know?

A. No, it is not.
Q. Did you ever make any attempt to obtain a promotion?

A. Yes, sir. I did try to get out of the Warehouse. I went over 

and asked the: Personnel Manager and tried to get into the 

Mechanic Gang. Also, I tried to get a Checker job, because 

one of the Checkers got killed and the other one died. Two 

vacancies came up, and I went over to the office and applied, 

said I come for a Checker's job; told me he would put it before 

the officials, which I never, heard anything from.

Q. Do you know what officials he was referring to?

A. I sure don't.

Q. Who was the man you talked to?
X  ' ̂

A. Mr. Meredith Davis. He was the Personnel Manager at that time.

Q. Is he the man you would normally see about promotions?

A. Right. He was the Personnel Manager. He was the man you were 

supppsed to go talk with first.

Q. And did you either receive a promotion or a transfer?
x / X  ............ ;

- 4 4 -



V,/

A. I didn't receive either one.
i i

Q. How did you become aware of vacancies in jobs other than the 

Checker job right where you work?

A. You really didn't have no way of knowing outside of any
/ ■, department that you was in.

Did the company make any or have any method by which it noti­

fied '. . .
. . \

Ho, none whatsoever.
I ■

Q. What sort of system of promotions did the company have?

A. Really, I don't know of any for any department I was in as 

far as blacks were concerned.

JUDGE ALAII40: Do you know of any promotions from Checker among

the whites in your department?

A. Promotions? Yes, sir.

Q. Did you ever ask to be taken off of the Catcher's job for a 

better job?

A. I asked to get off those bag?, because, really, catching those 

bags every day, doing the same thing, it was just too much on 

anyone doing that same type of work. It was very fast work,
' j

and I asked to be changed around. Let someone else do it i
awhile so I could do something else.

Q. Who did you ask?

A. I asked the Foreman, a Mr. Carl Henderson.

Q. And what was his response?

A. He said we don't have anybody.

- 45 -



Q. Have you ever known of any other blacks that attempted to

were out there?

A. Yes, I have. I have worked overtime.

Q. Any person that went to work for the company would be - were 

the eating facilities segregated by race?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. When did it become desegregated, if 'it did?

A. I don't know the exact year. It must be after the Civil Rights 

Act was passed. They had what you call white dinners at the- 

hotel. You go over to get a dinner , they had white dinners. 

The black and white didn't get the same food.

Q. Was the . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: Where didn't they get the same food?

A. The food was coming from the hotel. They prepare all the food

for the employees right there at the hotel, and they had a 

dinner boy go over there for the Warehouse and dip in the pot. 

They had a fellow that goes and dip in a pot.
N  ' ̂

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, did you pay for your own food or was it

furnished by the company?

A. You pay for your own food, but you didn't get the same food.
\

JUDGE ALAIMO:- In other words, you paid as much money for inferior

transfer out of the Warehouse?

A. I don't.

Q. How about overtime work? Did you work any overtime while you

food?

-46-



/
A.

Q. (When you first went to work out there, was the company segregated

A. I would say yes.

Q. What about with respect to jobs? Were there black jobs and 

white jobs?

A. Well, I . . .

Q. Were there any integrated jobs when you went out there, where 

both blacks and whites were working, when you first went out 

there? '

A. Not that I recall, not in my department. I would say that.

In my department, there wasn't.

JUDGE ALAIl-iO: Were there any black Checkers?

A. There wasn't any black Checkers.

JUDGE ALAIWO: Were there any whites handling the sixty-pound bags 

of sugar?

A. No, sir.
Q. What about women? Were there any women in your department?

A. No, there wasn't any women. The women worked upstairs. Only 

black women, Negro women.

Q. Is that where your wife worked?

K . Right.

Q. No white women have ever done that job?

A. Never have.

Q. Could you tell us what a Brass Check employee is?

-47-



A. JTt's a system they have - Brass Check employees get paid off 

/every day at the end of the day's work. You go by the office,

during the time that I was out there, they used to give them 

a bonus at the end of the year, also a gift at Christmas a

every day you wo rice d right beside you, do the same type of 

work but didn't receive anything from the company.. They didn't 

get a bonus. Didn't even get a ham or a turkey.. Didn't get 

nothing.

Q. All right. Do you know whether or not the - first, how long 

were these Brass Check employees you're referring to been 

hired? How long had they been working for the company?

A. Some of them been out there, I know, when I was out there, some 

of them been out there for many years, seven and eight years 

before they come on regular - before they got regular.

Q. V7ere these Brass Check employees black or white?

A. In my department, they were black.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Did I understand you to say that"the Brass Check 

employees got paid at the end of each day?

A. That's right. Every day, they got paid off.

JUDGE ALAIMO: And you know some who worked there six and seven 

years? x

A. That's right, and they got paid off every day. Some of them 

were on it for even longer.

ham and a turkey. Hell, these Brass Check employees, they work

-43



c
*v

Q. While you were at the plant, did you have an opportunity to 

Iobserve people being fired?

A. |Yes, I have.I
Q. Could you tell me - give me the names of some of the people 

who were fired and why they were fired?

A. Well, I just can't recall, but I know that in my department, 

several of the whites, and the only - I only seen one white 

guy fired during my time. I only know of one white.

Q. What were the blacks usually fired for?

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object to this. I don't think this 

witness is competent to testify as to why a lot of different 

blacks were fired. He doesn't know why blacks were fired.

JUDGE ALAIMO: He might know.

MR. SIMPSON: I don't think he would know what reason the manage­

ment will give unless he could state a particular employee - 

why the management . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, of course, in other words, some Foreman said, 

you know, or somebody.

MR. SIMPSON: I want to make my objection to this line of question­

ing.

JUDGE A L A I M O W e l l ,  if he knows.

Q.

A.

Q-

Do you know of any reasons that were given for firing black 

employees?
\

Why black employees were fired?

Right.

- 4 9 -



A. Yes. They have been' fired for just little words with the
I \

Foreman.

JUDGE ALAIUO: How do you know this, Mr. King? Did the Foreman

say so?

A ./ I have been right down there. One incident happened, I have

been right there when the guy and the Foreman had a few words,

and during this time, the Foreman could automatically fire
\

you but, now, they have a different system. You got to go 

through the Personnel Manager. The Foreman used to hired you 

outside the gate,and they could hire you and they could fire 

you, but now you suppose to go through the Personnel Manager 

and get fired there.

JUDGE ALAIUO: then did all this take place that you're talking

about? When did you observe these fires?

A. I can't recall the exact year, but it was during the time I 

was there. Probably eight or seven years, I. would say.

JUDGE A LA 1110: Seven or eight years ago?

A. Maybe that long. I don't know the exact date.

Q. When did this system change where the Foreman could hire and 

fire?

A. Well, I don't know the exact year because it changed . . .

Q. Was it before you left or after you left?
\

A. Before I left.

Q. You got your job through the efforts of your uncle?

A. Right.
37otl
-50-



Q. He got the job for you, and you also have an uncle and aunt . .

A. 11 have an uncle, mother, brother, and wife there now.

Q. j Do you know whether or not this - do you know whether or not 

the company has a policy or appears to have a policy of hiring 

relatives of other employees?’

A. Yes. They hire relatives there of other employees, mostly - 

basically a family thing.

JUDGE ALAIHO: Let me ask you in this respect. I knov/ this is 

past. Do you contend that using that as a hiring policy is 

discriminatory?

Q. In that respect, Your Honor, when given a system of segregated 

jobs when the highest paying jobs are all white and the lowest 

paying jobs are all black, when the highest paying job vacan­

cies come open, the whites are going to refer those relatives

JUDGE ALAIKO: Other than that, I mean, let's assume they kept 

these open. Well, based on merit, you don't then contend 

that they are preferring a family . . .

Q. It's not that per se. I mean, it may very well be, but we 

don't contend that it is. Do you know how widespread this 

policy is of hiring relatives?

A. It was like that when I went out there. I think it's the same 

way now. I can't say, but it was when I went out there.

Q. Do you knov; whites who have rela.t5.ves who work out there?

about.



e

A. Sure, I do.

Q. /Have you ever known a relative of yours or of any other black

I to come in by referral from you to one of these white or forma11 
white jobs?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever known a relative of a white person to be referred 

into a black job?

A. well, a black job I would - I mean my department, jC refer to 

my department - they wouldn't want the type of work the black 

was doing out there. I know they wouldn't want to refer them, 

because they would go to work.

Q. Why did you leave the company?

A. Because I saw no chance of advancement.

Q. No further questions.

G

CROSS
BXAHINATION OF HR. KING 3Y IiR. SIMPSON:
Q. Hr. King, you spoke of leaving the company because you saw no 

chance of advancement. I'm going to read you from Defendant's

Exhibit Number Four which is your personnel record at the
w  • ̂company.

NOTE: Mr. Simpson reading from document identified as Defendant's

Exhibit Number Four. \
\

Q. "llarch 3, 195G: Frank King warned to stay on the job. Told 

him the next time he d-id not, he would be laid off for two
A ,  f X

-52-



jr*

Q. (Cont’d) weeks. March 13, 1956 . . . "

JUDGE ALAIMO: ‘56?
q . Yes, sir. "Frank King, after being warned three times, still 

drops the 12/5*s too hard. • The next time he will be laid off 

for two weeks. I have told him. July 19, 1965: Came to work 

at 7:00 a.m. Refused to work any longer than after four 

hours. Said the work was too hard, and he needed help to 

catch the 12/51s which was coming too fast. April 8, 1966: 

Punched in at 2:59 p.m. Reported for work at 3:13 p.m.

Asked why. The only reason given, ‘He was ready to go to the 

office.’ November 11, 1966: Changing clothes at 2:00 p.m.

This causes the loss of one fork lift for approximately 

fifteen to twenty minutes. June 20, 1957: ..arned again, 

Stargells. June 23, 1967: Loafing and bickering. July 5, 

1967; Frank will not stay on the job. Has to be called to 

clean 12/51s out of the pallet sheet when his turn occurs in 

the cars. July 6, 1967: Frank King started eight 12/5’s 

for three sets. Was told to separate them. Working one hour 

and off one half hour. Refused. Quit and went home. July 10, 

1967: Official warning that complaints about his work was

excessive. Any further complaints, he would be subject to 

lay-off or dismissal. Employee complained about his physical 

condition, not being able to handle the 12/5’s. Was referred 

to Dr. Holloway for his opinion. November 1, 1967: Frank 

King. Hunting for men, found him in the rest room watching

-53-



Q. (Cont'd) a card game at 12:45 p.m." Now, with a record, of

/complaints such as this, do you feel that you should have been

! promoted?

A. I don't know nothing about it.

Q . M r . King . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: No, wait a minute. Let him answer it.

A. I don't know nothing of it. These complaints - you never

know about you have a complaint in the office until you go in 

the office and they say"we have a box of complaints on you." 

bho signed these complaints, you never know, and every Negro 

employee-that1s at the Sugar Refining right now today would go 

in that office for anything, they would tell them the same 

thing. Now, ail of that that you are reading, I know nothing 

of it, except one incident. I was in the bathroom, and some 

fellows was playing cards. I was in the bathroom with;some 

guys that was playing cards. The rest of them that you read 

off, I don't know nothing about. They never was told to me. 

The first time I've heard it.

Q. You don't remember . . .

A. I don't know nothing of nothing you've read.

Q. You don't remember Mr. Benny Jones g i v i n g  you official warning 

about your work?

A. Mr. Benny Jones give me official warning about my work?

Q. A warning- about your work.

A. I went in the office because I was sent in the office by

-54-



A. (Cont'd) Mr. Henderson, and the reason why I was sent in the 

office was because I ashed for help on the bags. He refused 

to cive me helm, so I asked him — I says, "Well, if I can't 

get no help, can I get my card and go home?" I said, "You 

don't have no one to put in my plaice while I'm here, but 

you can find someone to put. in ray place when I leave, " and so 

when I came back to work - which he told me to come back to 

work - when I came back to work, Mr. Henderson said they 

wanted to see me in the office, so I went over there in the 

office; so I went in the office. They didn't tell me nothing
* »

of all this you reading over there. I don't know nothing of

A. They didn't warn me about no complaints. The only thing

they say to me was "We have some complaints on you." They 

didn't ready out nothing. They didn't read out nothing about 

no complaints. They say, "We have complaints on you," and 

they tell any Negro that go in that office right now, and 
tell you the same thing thing. They don't read out nothing to 

you. They just say, "We have complaints." Any white in that 
Warehouse can vrite a complaint on you, and you will Know
nothing about it. Any white Checker in the Warehouse can write 

something up on you, and you know nothing about it. The 

Foreman can write a complaint on you, and you know nothing 

about it. Why don't they call you when they write the complaints?

it

-55- *



A. (Cont'cl) Why do they let it pile up, like you got three lists 

there, and I know nothing about, it.

Q. Well, ”ou were warned. Mr. Jones did tell you that there 

were complaints about your work, is that correct?

A. He told me one that they had some complaints on me, and I went 

in the.office, but what the complaint was I don't know. You 

got complaint of every year that happened here. I don't know 

nothing about it.

JUDGE ALAI: 10: Does the company have any policy of, say when such 

a complaint is entered, of calling the employee and giving 

him the - not a hearing, you know . . .

Q. Your Honor, I will establish that through the witness. I

think Your Honor will also take notice of the Exhibits, the 

personnel records of these people in evidence. You will see, 

except for three or four people of which Mr. King is one, that 

most of these payroll records have no complaints whatsoever 

about anything.
JUDGE A LA I MO: Nov/, I was interested in noting in the list that you 

read off that it went from '56 then to '65, is that correct?

Q. '56 through '67.
JUDGE ALAIMO: No, what I'm talking about is from 1S56, the next 

entry was '65, was it not?

Q. I think that's correct, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Nov/, also . . .

Q. Your Honor, there were three complaints about him in - two
/1> CK'

-56-



Q. (Cont'd) complaints - in '56, and then they went to '55, and 

jwe had another half a dozen complaints in '65.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Yes, sir, you had a number that year. I noticed

that they all stemmed from - Well, here it began in 1956.

I assume there are none prior to that, if it *s not shown.

Q. I could be - that's correct, Your Honor. Your Honor, I might 

also add since you've asked, testimony will be given that every

JUDGE ALAIMO: What determines whether it goes on the record or 

not ?
Q. I think the severity of the complaint and whether they've had

King, you testified that you - I believe your mother, Aretha 

Bruegel, worked at the plant?

A. That's right.
Q. And your wife, Elizabeth King, works there?

A. That's right.
Q. And your brother, Moses King, also works there?

A. Right.
Q. How long have they been employed at the plant? Hov; long has 

your wife been employed?

A. Approximately ten or eleven years.

Q. And how about your mother?

She's been there - well, I can't recall exactly the length of

in Mr. Baxter's complaint sheet, I guess you would call it

comolaint that appears at the plant doesn't go on the record.

A.



A. she's been there since she

\ .

(Cont'd) time she's'been there - 

was a young girl. I know that.

Q. Would vou rav’ t.went''7 ve?.rs?

A. Twenty, maybe it was longer than that.

Q. And your brother, Moses King? How long has he been'there?

Maybe tv;elve or thirteen years, maybe longer.

Now, you talked about promotions in the White Sugar Warehouse, 
. . \

which is where you work, is that correct? You worked in the 

White Sugar Warehouse?

A. That's right.

Q. And you were handling the 12/5's, is that correct? 

A. That's right-.

Q. And they have people who are operating the fork lift trucks, 

and they also have people who are Checkers, is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Do you recall Mr. Davis, who was then the Personnel Manager 

of the company, giving Checker jobs to your father-in-lav;, 

Lonnie Bruegel, who was black and also to Joe Wiggins, who 

was., black, and also to Herbert Jenkins, who was black? Do you 

recall that?
N  - N

A. Yes. Could I say something?

Q. I'm asking the questions.

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall their being given Checker jobs?

A. Right.
J / f h -
-58-

*



And your father-in-law, Lonnie Bruegel, tried out for a couple
of months, did he not?

A . Right

Q. Then he went back to his regular job?

A . / Right.

Right.

And 'they're Checkers

And then Herbert Jenkins, who was black, took his place

? As far as you know, they're still
Checkers, isn't that true?

A. As far as I know.

Q. You haven't been with the company since '68, so you don't know 

what’s going, on out there since '63?

who were Checkers?

A. Yes, Your Honor. May I say something to that?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, yes. I would like you to explain it.

A. Nov/, I'm going to explain that. They didn't have a black

Checker in the Warehouse until I went over there and I applied 

for a Checker job. About two or three weeks later, the Foreman 

came around and started asking the older guys what type of 

education they ha'd. This is how my father-in-law got - my 

step-father got one, and Joe Wiggins, but they been there all 

their life, and both of them are retired. They only been -

a moment ago on direct examination that there were no blacks

-59-
if



A. (Cont1d) they're retired now, so you can see how lo n g  they 

/been there. They been there all of their life and quite 

j naturally, they was going to get a job over me. I wasn't

worrying about the job so much . . .

Q. They had seniority over you?

A. That's right, and ash them when they got that job. They only 

got it a few years ago, and Joe Wiggins only held it a few 

months because he retired the same year he got the job. The 

same year he got the job, he retired.

Q. And Herbert Jenkins?

A. Herbert Jenkins got it now.

Q. Right, and they have black Checkers now, don't they?

A. X think they have. I don't know. It's like I say, X'm rot

don't they?

A. Well, they didn't have it when I was there. No, they did not 

have no whites driving no fork lift . . .

Q. Do you know now whether they have them or not?

A. I don't know now, because I'm not there, but they didn't have 

then. "They didn't have no whites driving fork lifts.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Is the fork lift job an undesirable job?

A. Anybody can drive a fork lift that "got common knowledge.

there

JUDGE ALAIMO: It would be pretty easy, wouldn't it?

A. No. It's not that complicated.

-60- *



I

I
(■V v

i

i

JUDGE ALAIIIO: How did it pay compared to what you were doing?

A. well, they getting a nickle more. I think they were. Five

(cents more.II
JUDGE ALAIHO: But that was an all black job, wasn't it?

A. All black job, right. All black job. Nothing but Negro did 

that.

JUDGE A LA 1210: Why didn't you want one of those jobs? The fork 

lift job - wouldn't it have been easier than throwing these 

sixty-pound bags of sugar around?

A. Well, what actually happened, Judge,• during that time, most of 

the older, guys held that. Joe Wiggins and my step-father had 

that . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: They had seniority?

A. That's right. They the ones that had those jobs. Been there 

all their lives. They got off the fork lift and they g-ive 

them the Checker. They been there all their life. They's 

the ones that were driving the fork lifts.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, then - v/ere blacks promoted then to these 

fork lift jobs when these men became Checkers?

A. Blacks promoted to the fork lift jobs?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Yes.

A. Well, right after that, I left. I really, to tell you the

truth, don't know how many v/as promoted to fork lift.\
Q. No further questions.

J O

- 61-



REDIRECT

EXAMINATION OF HR. KING BY HR. FARRINGTON:
Q. Do you know why your father-in-law didn't stay on that job?

A. Yes, I do.

Q . Would you explain why he . . .

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object to that question because that 

would be hearsay as to what his father-in-lav/ told him and so 

forth.
JUDGE ALAIHO: Well, it could explain his conduct, you know.

Q. Go ahead.
A. The reason why he didn't stay on that job in the department 

that I worked in was that he worked two shifts, 7:00 to 3:00 

and 3:00 to 11:00. Well, my step-father, he got a Checker 

job, and they would discriminate against him.

JUDGE ALAIMO: What do you mean?
A. Well, I'm going to come to that, Judge. In the morning time, 

that's two weeks in the morning, usually everybody works, The 

Negro and the white would work, but when we working from 3:00 

to 11:00, only the white Checkers come in and work. He had a 

Checker job, and they did not let him work. He had to stay 

home, but the white Checkers came in and worked, and he never 

got the pay. He asked for the pay, and he never got Checker 

pay, so he turned the job back. He said he couldn't get the 

pay, he don't want the job.

O. Do you know that he was still receiving pay as a fork lift

-62-



Q. (Cont'd) driver's pay?

A. That's right. That's what he was receiving.

Q. While he was supposed to have been . . .

A. He was supposed to have been on a trial basis.

Q. While he had the Checker's job?

A. That1s right.

Q. No blacks ever in Checker's jobs till you complained?

A. That's right.

Q. Okay. Do you have any idea why you started getting complaints 

in 19G5 and never had gotten any before?

A. Sure don't. I don't even know about all these complaints. It's

really amazing to me. I didn't know I had such a record at
Ithe company. I don't see why a person would keep all that on 

record and let you stay. I just don't understand it. All 

of this complaint and a person still keep you on the job.

Must be liking my work or something.

Q. We don't have anything further, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Anything else from this witness, Mr. Simpson?

MR. SIMPSON: No further questions, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: You may be excused.
\ 'NOTE: The witness withdrew from the stand.

MR. FARRINGTON: May we have just a minute, Your Honor.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, let's take a ten minute recess.

NOTE: The Court recessed for ten minutes.

NOTE: The Court reconvened after a ten minute recess.

63



JUDGE ALAII-IO: Would you call the v/itness, Frank King, back into 

/the courtroom, please? I want to ask him one other question.

HR. FRANK KING TOOK THE STAND, ARID HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY SWORN, 

TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

JUDGE ALAII-IO: Hr. King, it is my recollection that you stated 

you now work as a school bus driver?

A. Yes. I drive a school bus, but I am actually a Merchant Sea­

man .

JUDGE^ALAIHO: Do you do other work?

A. I am actually a Merchant Seaman, but I am just driving a 

school bus right now.

JUDGE ALAIi-iO: How much do you make?

A. You mean driving a school bus?

JUDGE ALAII-IO: Yes.
A. Right now, I drive a school bus. They pay me $1.97 per hour, 

but I do something else besides that.

JUDGE ALAIMO: What's that?
A. Night club. I have a friend of mine that runs a night club. 

JUDGE ALAII-IO: How much money do you make in the night club?

A.. App r ox imat e ly ?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Yes.
\

A. Well, it's kind of hard to say, you know, in business. YouX
\

might go in and you might make $300.00 a month.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, do you make more money now than you did when

-64-



JUDGE AIAIMO: (Cont’d) 'you were working for Savannah Sugar
i \

Refining?
7\  c* T v* T

JUDGE AIAIMO: How nuch v/e-re you making at the time you quit or 

I left?

A./ I think I was making $2.53 per hour. I think it was, Y o u r

Honor.
\

FUDGE ALAIIIO: Jind von did some overtime?
I ■
A. A lot of overtirae.

MR. FARRINGTON: May I address one question to him? 

JUDGE AIAIMO: Yes.

REDIRECT

EXAMINATION OF MR. KING BY MR. FARRINGTON:

Q. You said you were working as a Merchant Seaman?

A. I.am a Merchant Seaman, but I was just driving the school bus 

after I went into this business.

Q. You go out on a ship for six months or so and now you are 

back home off the ship and you just want to stay around?

A . That1 s r'i'ght.
\  '  v

Q. What is your rate of pay when you are on the ship?

A. Well, actually I - it's all depend on what rating that you 

sail in. I have two or three different ratings, and all of 

them, pay a different salary. The last job I had, I had a 

Oiler job, and it payed four - I think it was $4.63.

-65-



Q. All right. I have nothing further./
NOTe/: The witness withdrew from the stand,
' 'T> T"'TQfpQ>T • C" 11 * *IT T'*'̂

MR. GEORGE BUCKING TOOK THE STAND/ AND HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY 

SHORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
DIRECT

EXAMINATION OF MR. BUCKINS BY MR. FARRINGTON: 

Q. Mould you state your name, please.

A. Ggorge Buckins.

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Buckins?

A. Number 10, Jenkins Avenue, Woodville.

Q. Where are you employed?

A. Sugar Refining.

Q. How long have you been employed there? 

A. Fourteen years.

Q. How far did you go in school?

A. Sixth grade.

Q. How did you get your first job at the sugar refinery?

A.

Q.
A.

Q.

I beg your pardon.

How did you get your first job at the sugar refinery?

Oh, well, I was at the gate, and I had been there before, and 

v/hen I went back out there, the fellow knew me and he asked 

me did I want to work, and I told him I did.

What was your first job out there?
3.3.6a
-66-



/

•)

A. Packing, on the Packer Operator. Packer.
I

JUDGE ALAIMO: Now just a moment. Docs the Plaintiff contend 

I that the method of hiring employees - I assume that by their 

going to the gate or just going out there - that this is 
discriminatory?

Q. No, sir. We don't make any contention in that regard. Cur

main primary complaint is that when they get out there, blacks 

are assigned to the lower paying jobs. Nov/, for example, we 

think the nepotism argument has something to do with that, 

but the fact that he was a walk-in might, in itself, wouldn't 

have anything to do with that.

JUDGE' ALAIIiO: All right.

J - S  ^  o  j  o . o  n o w  •

:fore?

Vi • .. :1a C j_ rj

2~x • I'm a Pa
r\ w • The same

A. That1s r

Q.. When you

to - for

A. No, sir,

Q. Did they

A. Yes, sir

Q. Did they

company

was available? 

«d. N o , s r r .

Q. What kind of jobs are in the Packing Department?
<30 7<w

6 7 -



I

r

7 \drx, • Well .

Q. The na:
12/5 p

Did an;

A. No, si

G • Who i s

A • I'd sa;

Q. What i
7V

A i • The Fo.

Q. Is tha-

Floor '

there ,

A. You me

Q. Is the:

A. Oh ,  ye

Q. T s  V^0 i

A. Black .

Q. •Then yi

A. Well,

Q. Let me

" c  V * I  r- ' T ~ "> 7? '

there, somebody they call an Operator over you?
i

You mean an Operator . . .

Q. Is there somebody out there called an Operator?

machine operators. I'm talking about people who act in a 

supervisory capacity.

JUDGI3 ALAII10: Well now, this is what troubles me, Mr. Farrington. 

I assume if you've got a word which is a art, then he would 

understand you in the manner in which we discussed it earlier,

- 6 3 -



JUDGE ALAIMO: (Cont'd) but it appears that he doesn't understand 

jit in those terms. So it's apparently not a word of art out 

ithere, is it?

Q. Yes, sir, it is. The statistics show that it is.

JUDGE ALAIMO: But as common knowledge, it is not.

Q. Apparently, what the jobs are called by the company and what 

they may be csilled by the employees is different. Let me 

ask you this question. Have you ever had a black Supervisor

or a black P.oreman?

A. Ho, sir.

Q. You've never known any white people to work as Packers?

A. No, sir.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Now by the word Packer, do you mean somebody that 

operates this 12/5 machine? What's a 12 - you said operate a 

12/5. What is that machine?

A. Yes, sir.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Now, when you classify a person as a Packer, an 

employee as a Packer, is he a person that runs this machine?

A. Yes, sir.

JUDGE ALAIMO: How many people are on these machines?
N  s v

A. Well, there's more than one end, and I'll be the person on the 

end where I be - I operate at that end of the machine.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, how many are there that work on that machine
\

altogether?

A. One.



JUDGE ALAIMO: Just one?

A. No, sir. You see, there's people on the other end. They - the 

way it was, the people on the other end feed the machine, and1
on this end where I be at, I operate in the packer part.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Now, is- there anybody in overall charge 

of that whole machine?

A. No.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Both ends?

A. Just the two people, what be one on the other end feeding it, 

and I'm on the other end.

JUDGE ALAIMO: In other words, there are only two working on the 

machine ?

A. That's right.

JUDGE AIAIMO: Either one in charge?

A. That's right.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Which one is in charge?

A. Neither.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Neither of them. In other words, you just work 

together?

A. That's right.

Q. Mr. Buckins,,this job you work on, do newly hired people work 

on this job as well, or do they go somewhere else before they 

work there?
\

A. No.

Q. Do newly hired people work on the job? Have you ever seen

-70-



Q. (Cont'd) anybody that came in off the street and begin to
i i

work on this job?

A. Not as I recall.

Q. Where do people'come from to work on this job?

A. Well, when I see peojjle, they be in the middle. I don't know 

where they go.

j-DGE ALAIMO: Let me ask you this, Mr. Buckins. Well, is a person 
\promoted, tp this job, or can they hire somebody off the street 

to come right on in and start working on this job?

A. Well, they - .

JUDGE ALAIMO: Or is there no difference?

A. I would say it would be different, because they hired the people

who been there, and they ju: them on in there and put

them started to working there.

JUDGE ALAIilO: All right. When you went to work there, did you go 

to work on this machine?

A. That's right.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

Q. Have you ever been promoted to any higher job?

A. No, sir, ..I haven't.

Q. Have you'ever made any effort to be promoted? Have you ever 

asked to be promoted?

A. No. I was afraid to ask.

Q. Why were you afraid to ask for a promotion?

A. Well, the way they were doing, there was something about it.

..............................................................................  , ------------------------

-71-



A. j(Corit'd) They didn't talk to us about it so x was afraid to

JUDGE ALA 1210: What?

A. They way they would talk to us about it.

JUDGE ALAIi-iO: How did they talk to you about it?

A. Well, I never did go because I was afraid to go because I 

figured they was going to turn me down.

JUDGE ALAII-IO: Why?

A. I don't know.

JUDGEUALAIMO: I mean why were you afraid to ask?

A. Well - . ̂
JUDGE ALA 12-10: In other words, was it something that you know they 

were doing, or is this just your own idea?

A. Vie.lb it was my own idea, Judge.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, you know, tell me the truth. So it was

purely your own idea and not something that anybody on behalf 

of the plant ever did? it
1\. No, sir, my own idea.

Q. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Buckins. Is there any common

understanding among black employees out at the plant about
\  ' s

people who try too hard to get promotions?

A. Yes, it is.

Q.

MR.

All right. What is that common understanding?
\

SIMPSON: Your Honor, I must object to that question. I don't

think he can testify as to what's a common understanding.



JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, I will let it in , but whether or not theI
/Defendant is responsible for it is something else. So far,

MR. SIMPSON: I don't see how this witness can talk about a common 

understanding at the plant. He can't testify as to what 

everybody else is thinking. He doesn't know. How could he 

possibly know?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well . . .

Q. What is that . . .

JUDGE^ALAItlO: You better withdraw . . .'

Q. . . .  understanding?

A. Well, I would say they was Uncle Tom's, because they cut t he• 

grass for the Supervisor and things and then they go and talk 

to them about . . .

Q . Okay. Let me back up.

JUDGE AIAIMO: I didn't understand that.

Q. I think he got a little bit ahead. Let me back up. Have you 

ever seen somebody promoted around you for a job that you 

thought you ought to have?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. All right. Who was he?

A. Joseph Edwards.

Q. Was he black or white? \

A. Black.

Why did you think you "should have the job?
At A A

Q.



Well, they gave it to him.
i l,Why do you think you should have had it?

Well, because I was in the plant before they hired him.

What job did they promote him to?

They said they was going to make an Assistant Operator out of

him.

Qj. All right. Now, who was this person - Mr. Edwards, you said 
\it was?

A. That's right. Joseph Edwards.

Q. All right. Why did he get the job over you?

A. Well, all I can say is because he was cutting grass for the 

Superintendent over the plant at that time before he retired.

JTjnoE ALAI r.'o; 1 p -Dipt a - ‘ f f T -f- p

Q. Well, he v/as cutting the grass?

A. x : l d  U S right.

Q • Le me - was he cutting it at the Superintendent

A. That's right.

Q. And your statement about Toms awhile ago . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: Is it your contention that he was doing this for 

nothing,,or was he getting paid to cut the grass? Do you 

know? " "

A. I don't know.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

Q. Let's go back. Your statement about Toms awhile ago, is it

your contention - or what you said was that the people who are

I -7 A-



Q. (Cont'd) Toms get the promotions?
\ \

A . That1s it. That * s it.

Q. Is there any may that you know that you can find out about
»

vacancies in jobs as they occur at the plant?

A.
J

No.1

Qi
Have you ever seen a bulletin posted?

i
No, sir.

\
. How do peopleQ. get promoted to a job? What sort of system is

there? As far as you know, is there a system at all?

A. No, sir, not that I know of.

Q. Have you ever known of any other black persons to request a 

transfer or a promotion and be denied that?

X A • X C f S i. 1— f J. C.L O •
Q. Who is that?

A. Johnny ijaiscer.

JUDGE A LA IAO: Is that the only one?

A, And Hoses King.

JUDGE ALAIIIO: Are they the only two?

A. That's the only two that I know of.

JUDGE ALAIIIO:'- That you know of?

Q. Is Hoses King the brother of Frank King, the man who was just

in here before you?
\

A. Yes.

Q. When you first went to work at the plant,. Iir. Buckins, would 

you say that there were white jobs and black jobs?

- 7 5 - *



A. Yes, I would.

ii

y

Q. Were there any integrated jobs that you know of, any jobs in 

which both blacks and whites worked?

A. Well, they did,'but I don't know how they were integrated or

how many.

What kind of job or 

The Mechanics' j ob. 

The Mechanics' job.

whi ch was that?

Is that the only one that you know about?

A. Yes.

Q. Since 1955, have there been any noticeable changes in this?

A. Not as I know of.

Q. Speak up, please.

7̂ m Not c\s* ?:no-r

Q. Now, did you ever do any relief work, or do you know of people 

who do relief work?

A. No, sir, I don't.

Q. Does anybody ever relieve you?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Any white people ever relieve you?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know of a n y  white person that ever relieves for a black 

person?

A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know of any blacks that ever relieve for a white person? 

A. No, sir.

-76-



On the 26th day of January, 1972, Hr. Buckins, you were down

at my office, is that correct? We took a deposition then.

All right. I ask you to remember the date of February 14, 197

I did.

Who is Hr. Preston Elackwelder?

He is' the Supervisor of Personnel.

Okay. Tell the Court what happened that day.

I went there'on the 14th to ask to borrow some money. I was 

going off on a week's vacation. I went over there, and he 

wasn't in the office at the present time when I walked in, so 

I had to wait a while. So when he came back in the office, I 

asked a fellow that had been there first - he went in and ask 

to borrow some and he lent it to him - and so after that one 

walked out, I went in to ask if I could borrow some money and 

he told me yes, and. I wrote the ticket, and then he laid back 

in his chair, and he say, "We don't do nothing out here but
X -

right but loa.n money, 11 and. so I stood there thinking maybe he 

would say some more to me. So I asked him, I said, "Well,

Hr. Blackwelder, I didn't come here for no long conversation. 

I said, "I come here for one thing, to ask you could I borrow 

some money." I said, "If you lend it to me, I'll thank you.

Yes, sir

welder?



G

( i

A.

n

A.

A.

Q.

(Cont'd) I said, "If you don't lend it to me, I'll still thank 

/you," and I turned around and walked out.

Now what was it he said to you?

He said, "They didn't do nothing out there but right but loan 

money."

I'm sorry. I didn't understand what you said. What did 

H r . B1 ackv/elder say?

"We didn't do nothing but go around and make complaints against 

the company."

Well, are you saying that you - that' Hr. Blackwelder said, "We 

don't loan money to people who go around and make complaints?"

A. He didn ’ t le

Q. But he said

A. That's right

JUDGE ALAIHO: I understood it no'.; - as I understood his statement 

was that all that everybody did out there was to come up and 

borrov; money.

Q. No. He used the word complaint.

JUDGE ALAIMO: No, he didn't do that. You used it. Now, that was 

my impression. Is that correct? In other words, did you take 

it to mean that he was complaining about black employees 

always coming around trying to borrow some money? Is that 

what you understood him to say? \
\

A. No.

JUDGE ALAIMO: What did he say? I misunderstood you.
' S x  . t  .
- 7 3 -

*



A. Well, I will say it again. Is that all right?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Yes. Tell me in the exact words that he used,

I as best as you can remember.

A. All right, sir. Then I ashed him about the money, he told me, 

"Yes," and he wrote the ticket out, and he asked me for my 

card number, and I told him my card number and so then he 

laid back in the chair and he said, "Well now, we don’t do 

nothing out here but right but to loan money."

JUDGE ALAIMO: Say that again. We don’t do nothing out here but 

V/hat ?

A. "But right but to loan money."

JUDGE ALAIMO: But right but to lend money?

A. That’s right.
Q. He said, "We don’t do anything out here right but loan money."

A. That’s what he told me.

Q. Okay. What did that - it mean to you?

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object as to what it means to him.

He can testify as to what was said to him, but I don’t think 

he has any right to testify as to what that meant to him.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.
\  ' v

Q. Did Mr. Blackwelder say, "You all go around making complaints 

against the company?"

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, to begin with ,\ the witness has already 

testified as to what he said. - " v

JUDGE ALAIMO: Don’t lead- the witness. I understood what he said.

- 7 9 -



JUDGE ALAIMO: (Cont'cl) Nov/, you've explained it, but whose words

/was it you used? I don't remember him using this other phrase 

' that you've just put in there.

Q. that else did I-ir. Blackwelder say other than . . .

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I must object to this. He's testified 

to the only thing Mr. Blackwelder said, and now, Mr. Farring­

ton is trying to get him to say additional things that Mr. 

Blackwelder obviously did not say.

JUDGE ALAI1I0: You tell me. What else did he say? He - I understand 

yen now. First', you wrote out the ticket?

A. Yes.
JUDGE ALAIMO: You asked to borrow the money, and then you wrote'

out the ticket and he asked for your ticket or whatever it was, 

and then he apparently had some second thoughts, and he kind 

of leaned back and said, "Apparently v/e don't do anything

right here except loan money."

A. That's true.
JUDGE ALAII10: Did he say anything else?

A. .He said, "Ya'll go around and make complaints against the 

company."

JUDGE ALAIMO: What else, if anything?

A. I didn't v/ait for him to say anything else, 

around and walked out the door after JJ told 

him if he lent it to me , and if he didn't,

thank him.

because I turned 

him I would thank 

I still would

- 80 -



c
JUDGfE ALAIMO: Well, did you take this to mean that he v/asn't going 

/ to actually loan you the money?

A. I No, sir, because he didn't. He told me. He said, "No, I 

ain't going to let you have it," and so I come on out the

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. In other words, he changed his mind?

A. Yes, sir.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

Q. M r . Buckins, have you borrowed money from the company before? 

A. Yes, sir, and haven't had any trouble either.

Q. Is it a company policy to make small loans to its employees 

as they needed it?

A. Yes.

O. And they take the money back out of your paycheck?

A. That's right.

Q. How many loans have you made out there before?

A. I don't know, sir. I couldn't tell you just exactly how 

many, but I have made quite a few.

Q. You haven't had any problem before getting a loan?

A. No, sir, I haven't.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, I gather there's no discrimination in that. 

Q. Apparently not until this lav; suit. When you first came to

work out there, were the restroom facilities and the dining
\

\

facilities segregated by race?

A. No, sir.

- 3 1 -



(J>

Q. I mean did blacks and whites eat together?

A . No.

Q * Dicl tli0^7 \ic-0 tlio Seine ircst 2roor.1T 

A. No, sir.

Q. Did they use the same locker room?

A. No, sir.

Q. When did that change?

A. I just can't remember right now the minute they was changed.

Q. Are there any women assigned to work at the plant? Any women 

work up there?

A. Nothing but the women who work over in the planning room in 

the mail over there, 

w. On Packing machines?

A. Well, on the Wrap 'em and Tab 'em machine, they call it.

Q. Any white women work on it?

A. No.

Q. Do you know what a Brass Check employee is?

A. Not now, there isn't.

Q. No. Do you know what one is?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. Explain to the Court what a Brass Check employee is.

A. Well, that was when you go in there and work that day, and you

go back that same day and get your money. You don't know whether 

you have a job the next day or not.

Q. Were you over on Brass Check?

- 82-



A. That's right.

Q. How long were you on Brass Chech?

.no re ■— -r-1 T J_ -! 1 1 T  J- ,0 »- ■? -t-

Q. Do you know of any other persons cut there who have been 

Brass Check loncer than that?

A. lions that I knows.

JUDGE ALAIMO: How are they paid, by checks at the end of each da 

Q. No, cash.

A. Cash money.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, let me ask him.

Q. I'm sorry.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, did they give you a withholding slip or any­

thing to sn how much taxes they withheld or anything like

that ?

A. No, .they didn't give you nothing. 

JUDGE ALAIMO: They just gave you cash? 

A . That's right.

Q. I have no further questions.

EXAMINATION 0? 1-1R. BUCKINS BY MR. SIMPSON: 

Q. Mr. Buckins, when you were doing work 

was just casual labor around the plant 

words, one day you might do one thing 

might do something entirely different,
j V i a . .

as a Brass Check, that 

, was it not? In other 

and. the next day you 

isn't that correct?

-33-



A. No, sir. At that time, I was on the Packer machine. I was on« \
- that Packer every day.

vc • brass Check . tea re tna c  ̂uii - a •. ipoxary ( uplo^ ee, isn  ̂

that correct?

A. / Yes, sir.

Q.j Then when you v/ent on card is when you became a permanent

employee, isn't that right? Isn't that what you call going on 

card when you get to be a permanent employee, or do you know? 

A. I don't knowT.

Q. Nov/, you first went to work for the Sugar Refinery about in 

1946 or '47 as a Brass Check employee, didn't you?

A. That's correct.

Q. And then you left there and v/ent to work for the Liberty Bank 

as a janitor, .isn't that true?

A. That's correct.

Q. And. you worked, for the Liberty Bank as a janitor for several 

years, and then you came back to the Sugar Refinery in 1959, 

is that correct? Is that about right?

A. I v/ent back there in '53.

Q. '53, and that's when you came back as a regular employee in
N ' ̂

1958, is that right, or were you Brass Check for a few months?

A. I v/orked on Brass Check when I first v/ent back there. The

first of June is when I got my card.

Q. On the first of June, you got your card, and that's when you

became a permanent employee, and that was in *53 or '59?
%

-84-



A. ?59.

Q. plow when you've been answering these questions for Mr. F.arring-

:re vnen

in early 1946 that you were referring to?

about '53.

Q. About '53.

JUDGE ALAI1I0: Well, what conditions are you referring to now that

as I recall it, was that the conditions that you were referring

Wow, what conditions were you talking about that were in 

existence in 1953?

A. (Wo answer by witness).

JUDGE ALAIMG: I don't believe he understood your question, Ilr. 

Simpson.

Q. Well, Your Honor, we'll go ahead and skip the question. It 

doesn't really matter. He had responded to the question 

of Mr. Farrington about when he first went out there, and I
N  • v

was just establishing if it was '46 or '53. He obviously 

meant '58.

existed in 1953? Mr. Simpson just asked you in his question

to existed in 1946 and you said, "Wo, they existed in 1953

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right

Q. You know Earl Hamilton, don't you?

A. Yes, I do

-85- i



c

c /

( J

Q. H e ' s black, is he not?

A. Yes.

C. And he ' s a Floor C': “ f

A. I don
t

't know if he is i

down there and they put me up on the third floor.

But you are in the Packaging Department, are you not? You're
on the third 

\
Yes, sir.

•
a /

Q. That's still a part of .the Packaging Department?
A. Well, like I say, I didn't know what it was. I never been

there before.

Q. You know he is Floor Chief, don't .you?

A. Do, sir, I don't.

Q. You don't know either of the Floor Chiefs?

A . No.

Q. You don't know Mr. Columbus Pollidore, the Floor Chief?

A. No, sir, I don't.

CL. He's black, is he not?

A. Yes,-, sir.

Q. Nov;, when'you spoke about someone cutting the grass at the
\  * v

Superintendent's home, that was at the home there in the 

village, isn't that correct? In other words, there's some 

homes out there in the village right next to the plant that 

employees live in, isn't that correct?

A. No, sir. He was cutting grass up there on the road just before

- 3 6 -
*



c .
A. (Cont'd)

Q. That's p

A. No, sir,

Q. You don'

A. No, sir.

Q. / Nov,7, isn

1 f  Jr  ’

in the Packaging Department was displaced by a new machine,
\

isn’t that.correct ?

A. That is correct.

Q. Isn't that really your chief complaint against the company, 

that you lost your job to a machine?

A. I didn't understand you.

Q . Isn *c tnat rearl^ m e  m a m  reason \niy you're compla.in.rng aoout 

the company is because you were displaced from that machine?

A. Well, they moved me from off the machine and give it to Joseph 

Edwards and said they were going to make an Assistant Operator 

out of him.

Q. All right. At that time, weren't there - there were five of 

you who were working on the machine, and they got a Bundler 

in there,*-didn't they?

A . That's right.

Q. And the new Bundler took the place of the work that five 

machines used to, isn't that right?

A. I don't know.

Q. And then didn't one Operator then do the job that five Operators
......

-37-



IQ. (Cont'd) used to do?

A. /The machine took two Operator's jobs.

Q. i And 'rou and four or five other employees v.Tho './ere in the same

came in, isn't that right?

A. Yes, because they gave Joseph Edwards the job what I think I 

should have had.

Q. Now, the company didn't let you go because your job was dis-

that right?

A. Yes.

Q. You're still working there, aren't you?

A. That's right.

Q. And you've been working there ever since?

A. That's right. !

Q. No further questions.

NOTE: The witness withdrew from the stand.

HR. FARRINGTON: Summer Wallace.

MR. SUMMER WALLACE TOOK THE STAND, AND HAVING BEEN PREVIOUSLY
\  ’ v

SWORN, TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:

lodged, but they found you another job, didn't they? Isn't

DIRECT

Q. Will you state your name, please sir.

A. Summer Wallace.

- 3 3 -



Q. :e do you live, Mr. Wallace?

A. 116 Fifth Street, Savannah, Georgia.

w • do you work?

A. Savannah Sugar Refining.

Q. How long have you been employed out there?

A. Going on twenty-seven years.

JUDGE A LA 1140: How long?

A. Twenty-seven years.

Q. How far did you go in school?

A. First grade.
Q. What was the first job you had at Savannah Sugar?

A. Where I'm at now, in the Packing Room.

Q. The Packing Room?

A. Yes.
Q. The same job you've got right now? '

A. The same job I've got right now.

Q. And any time during the twenty-seven years you've been out 

there, have you ever done anything different?

A. No, nothing different.
Q. Are there any white people who do the same kind of work you

\  ' v
do in the Packing Room?

A . N o .
Q. Have there ever been?

\
\

A. No, not since I was there.

Q. Who is your Supervisor, your immediate Foreman?



A. Paul Jones.

Q. Is he black or white?

A. Uhite.

Q. Have you ever had a black supervisor?

A. No.
Q. Did you ever know of any blades to supervise or who had 

supervisory jobs?

A. No.
Q. I'm going to try one more time, Your Honor. Do you know what 

ap Operator is?

A. Operator?^

Q. Right.
A. Supposed to be - carries a pair of pliers and wrench with him 

is all I know.

Q. Pair of pliers and a wrench? '

A. Yes.
Q. Are there any - Operator is not what you do? I mean that's 

not your job? That's not what they call you, is it?

A. They call me a Packer Operator. That's what they call me.

Q. But there is a different job classification called an Operator

Q. Do these Operators work anywhere around you?

A. Sure. They work with me. x
\

Q. All right. Do you know what they're responsible for or what

A. Yes.

they do?

- 9 0 -



A. Supposed to keep the' machines going; the heaters and stuff.
i \

Q. Are there any white people - any black people who work in this

job that you know of?
i

A. Yes.

Q.
A.

Q.

Do you know how long they've been working there? I’ mean in 

that particular job?

I don't know. As long as I been there, they had blacks work- 
. . \

ing on that job.

Are you sure you're not talking about the Mechanics?

V7ell, they had Mechanics too. You've got Mechanics and, you 

know, you got some colored people employed as Operators work­

ing on that 'heater up there, or one of those machines to keep 

them going.

Now, are there also white people in this job, Operator? 

Operator?

Right.

A. Not as I know as Operator.

(JUDGE ALAIMO: You don't know of any white Operators, is that

right?

A. They've dfot white Operators out there all right.
\ * N

JUDGE ALAIMO: Doing what?

A. Got them oi;t there - any of the Operators there that works
\

Boiler Room - Mechanic or something. I don't know.

Q. Do they do the same kind of work as the black Operators?

A . N o .

i-91-



Q.
A.

I

hey

do they do that 

fix - out there

s different? 

working on the machines, like if it
(breaks down or something like that, they call him a 'lead 

Mechanic.

Q. And blacks don't do that kind of work?

A. No, none of the I-Iead Mechanics are black. 

Q. Have you ever been promoted?

A. No, I never been promoted. They were s 

and then they kind of changed and never 

tp_ja higher job on a machine after they 

there and-ythen moved me off there cause 

in there; put me on a two-pound machine

upposed to promoted me, 

promoted me - you know 

put a new Bundler in 

that Bundler came down 

and bring another fella
over there and put him on it.

Q. And who was that other fellow?

A. Willie Hicks.

Q. Had he been working in the plant as long as you had?
A ., N o .

JUDGE ALAIMO: Was he white or colored?

A. Colored.

JUDGE AIAII'10: Had he been there a much shorter period of time
\  ' v

than you had?

A. Yes, sir. \

Q. Do you know how long he had been there-?\ \
A. No, but I been a lot longer than that. I been there way ahead 

of him.

-92-



Q. Have you ever observed a white employee being hired off thei i
streets in higher paid jobs than the one you got? Have you

ever

A. In iay department.

Q . R h t .
A. i. couldn't say that cause I don't know.

Q. /bid you ever ask for a promotion?
I - 'A. T never asked cause I didn't want to lose the time asking for

Q. Would you tell the Judge again'why?

A. Cause we'd lose the time asking for it. There was some more

fellows asked jobs out there, and they didn't know enough abou 

it, and they don't get them.

Q. Do you know of people who have asked for promotions and have 

not received them?

A. Well, yes, I have heard them say so. I ain't - you know - I 

haven't heard them say it.

Q. . That they had asked for jobs?

A. Yes. •• So after that, there was no point in my losing time 

asking for'a job.
'v ' ̂

JUDGE AT A  TITO; Mr. Wallace, are you talking about all employees 

out there or just the blacks?

A. Blacks. I don't know. We don't know nothing about the white 

departments.

Q Do you know of any blacks who have ever asked for a raise?



A.

Q.

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

For a raise? Not to my calling right now.

How do you know when a job vacancy becomes available at the 

plant?

You don’t know it.

Have you ever seen any bulletins posted in the plant about job

vacancies.

No, sir.

What kind of a system of promotions do they have out there? 

System of promotions?

Y qew. System - do they have any system of promotions? Did 

they explain to you how you get promotions?

No.

How about overtime? Do you ever work any overtime?

I have worked some overtime.

Did you work as much as white employees were allowed to 'work, 

if you know?

I don’t know.

Mr. Wallace, did you ever know of a man out at the plant named 

Lucius? Did you ever know of a man named Lucius who worked 

in Dry Sugar?
s  * n

Yes, I know him. It was a long time ago.

Does he still work out there?

No. \
\

Do you know why he no longer works out there?

They tell me a bunch of them went down together and
\ 5 2/o._

asked -

»- 9 4 -



A. (Cont' d) write a petition out and carry it over for to as!

for some more money, and they carried it over there. When
4- r* t  t r~- r-\ over there, there wasn't but one man's name on it

and that v/as his name, and he couldn't read and write, so they 

fired him for asking for more money.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Did he tell you this? Did Lucius tell you this or 

did somebody else, or did you hear it or heard it said?

A. That's what I heard they was saying.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I would have to object to that.

JUDGE AIAIMO: All right. I'd have.to sustain the objection to 

that.

Q. Your Honor, we offer it for this purpose; that is it common 

knowledge among blacks,or at least they think.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, you see, now what weight can I give that? 

Supposing this is an unreasoned thought in their mind. How 

does that bear on discrimination', unless the Defendant is 

responsible for it. Now if they are responsible and encourage 

that kind of feeling, yes.

Q. Let me ask some questions, if I might.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Okay.
X  ' N

Q. Do you know for a fact that Lucius signed this request for 

more money?

A. See, he didn't - they said he didn't sign it. The other fellow 

he couldn't read or write, and he used an "X" to stand for his

name.



MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object to anything "they said." lie's
i \

not saying he knows about it. I-Ie doesn't know about it of his

own knowledge; therefore, I don't think he's competent to testi
t

as to what anybody else told him about what this fellow did.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well . . .

Q. Do you know whether or not his name was on the thing?

A. / They said his name was on it.
/ 'HR. SHIP SON: They said. Now, do you know?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, I mean-the mere fact that the man couldn't 

read or write; he couldn't, isn't that right? He couldn't 

put his name down on it, could he, if such a thing exists? 

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, he doesn't know of his own knowledge. 

JUDGE ALAIMO: I understand.
Q. Hr. Wallace, do you feel - do you believe that something like 

that would happen to you?

A. Sure, I feel so.
Q. Do you know whether or not other black people think that

something like that would happen to them if they asked for 

raises or for promotions?

A. I'm not speaking for them now. I don't know whether they feel 

it or not, but it's my feeling.1

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Mr. Wallace, do you know of anything

that Supervisors, whites, out there have said or done to make

you feel that way?

- 9 6 - 4



A Well, I been told what had happened to thope other men

JUDGE ALAIMO: To Lucius?

A. Yes

/think they were responsible for it

A. /Sure, I feel so.

JUDGE ALAIMO: ^All right, but that's the only reason that you

/ have for saying that you were afraid to ask for a promotion or 

for a raise? You're afraid they would fire you?

A. Well, I ain't the only one that was afraid they v/ould fire. 

There's a lot of fellows afraid they v/ould be fired.

JUDGE ALAIMO: But do you know of anything that they have said or 

done, other than this Lucius incident, that would, justify your 
feeling that way?

A. I woiVt go any further on that.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, I need to know. I don't question what you're 

saying, but I need to know what the reason for it is. Do you 

' know of,any other incident like you're talking about here about 

Luc ids that caused you to think that they v/ould fire you if 

you asked for a raise or a promotion?X  - v
A. Well, the only thing they tell you when you go to ask for a 

promotion is that they will look into it.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Have you ever asked for 'one - a promotion - and

, they told you that?

A. I ain't never asked for one, but there's a fellow out there

- 9 7 -



A. (Cont'd) right now, he.ashed for a promotion, and they told
$ l

him they would loot into it.

JUDGE ALAII10: All right.
Q. Do you know of any'other black people out there who have been

fired?

iost their job - the company made them go out the gate?
. .  . \I can't recall that right now.

• / '

Q. Ho further questions.
JUDGE ALAII-IO: All right. Let me ask you something, Mr. Farring­

ton. YouVe had access to these records?

MR. FARRINGTON: Yes, sir.

U  U i j G l l j  A i k h i i - i O  I  . . i T i c i w  C i l u . C-  t ~\7 *1 c* mace on c.documents similar to. say

Defendant's Exhibit Number Two, when a man is discharged?

MR. FARRINGTON: we don't have the records, for everybody, Your 

Honor.
JUDGE ALAII-IO: Well, I assume you have some. Do you have any who

were discharged?

MR. FARRINGTON: Only two.

JUDGE ALAII-IO: 'Was there an entry made?

MR.' FARRINGTON: Yes, sir.

JUDGE ALAII-IO: Shov/ing that?

MR. FARRINGTON: Yes, sir.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.
MR. FARRINGTON: I don't have anything further.
.......  _...._________________ _

' - 9 3 -



JUDGE 7i.LA.IM0: Mr. Farrington, in your examination of those
I
Documents, did you find any of these - I assume we'll call it
/
la personality data sheet - in which a man was allegedly fired 

in which there was no entry made?

MR. FARRINGTON: No, sir. The only personnel records we have are 

those for the Boiler Room people who are now working in the 

Boiler Room. Naturally, they would not have been terminated, 

and people we told Mr. Simpson we were going to call as 

witnesses.

JUDGE ALAIMO: TThy didn't you - you didn't make any further discovery 

MR. FTiRRINGTON: No, not on the personnel level.

JUDGE ALA 1710: All right.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor,- you were asking about the personnel 

records. These are Defendants Exhibits Four on Frank King 

and Six on Summer Wallace and Five on George Buckins. They 

should help.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.
|;
■

CROSS
i

EXAMINATION OF MR. WALLACE BY MR. SIMPSON:
\  ' v

Q. Nov;, you were talking earlier about the person who had just

signed his name with an "X". You haven't seen that record,
\

s .

have you? \
\ \

A. No, I haven't seen it.

Q. You haven't seen it personally. You were just talking about



C l
Q. (Cont'd) what somebody else told you, is that right?

A. .That what I heard.
"■’’ l l  *. T T n c2.0 z r  r ■ g 'Z - -zln ci-i O V 7  / « ' X - C- * 1 O  wl V- k—  -** ^ **“ * x ~ZJ v"4’ ^  ~

promotion in your department last year, isn't it true that 

you v/ere working on a machine, and a new Bundling Machine 

came in and replaced four machines and four machine operator: 

isn't that correct?
\

A.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.

A.

Yes.
And the job had been held by Willie Hichs, Summer Wallace, you, 

George Buckins, Shellman and'Faye, isn't that correct? There 

were five of you doing that same kind of work, is that true?

I think there was five. I . . . ■
And when the new Bundling Machine came in, only one person 

had the job, isn't that correct?

Yes. The way it was, Buchanan, he told me that I had the job 

of- running the machine, and he came back later on after I had 

run it one or two days, and then he came back and moved this 

other fellow off the two - thirty two-pound machine - bring 

him- over there and put him on there and put me on the thirty 

tv/o-pound' machine.

All right. Now . . .
But I was supposed to have the job of running the thirty two- 

pound machine.
Well/ Willie Hicks got the job, .isn't that correct?

Yes. They gave the job to Willie Hicks

- 100-



r  >j- ■

o

o

Q. And that left you and Buckins and Shellman and Faye without a 

machine, isn't that right?

A. Faye? Who's Faye?

Q. Faye, you don't know him?

A. I know a Faye, but I don't know that Faye.

Q. You know Johnny Shellman, don't you?

A. I know John Shellman, big Johnny Shellman,

Faye.
Q. And so what they did, they put you on another jojd doing casual 

work in the area, isn't that right;

A. Yes, sir.
q . The company didn't fire you, although your job had been 

eliminated, isn't that right?
A. Yes. That job was eliminated because they moved me off there

and put Willie Kicks over there. I been working on the machine 

going on twenty—seven years, and tney moved Willie Kicks - 

come in way behind me — and they put him on there.

Q. Well, Willie Hicks is black, is he not?

A. Yes, he's black.
Q. Now, he, got the job, and four of you who were working on those 

machines are no longer working on them, isn t that righc?

A. That's right.
Q. But the company didn't let you go, did they? They kept you 

on as an employee, did they not?

A. Yes.
<̂ .6f ̂

-101- 4



Q. And you're still working out there, aren't you?

A. Yes.
JUDGE ALAIMO: Mr. Simpson, why would a man with more seniority 

not have been offered the job?

Q. Your Honor, I think we will come to that in our own direct

testimony. If you want me to tell you, I will be glad to, but

was made the Operator over five black employees, and we'll 

cover that in our testimony.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.

laborer, weren11 ;you?

A. That is right.
Q. And you haven't done anything else except that, is that right?

A. That is all.
Q. Wow, you stated that there is no black Mechanics. There are 

some blacks who are Mechanics out there at the plant, aren't 

there?

A. Black Mechanics?

Q. Yes. Haven't you seen them?

A. Yes. They got a couple of them around there . . .

Q. They've got blacks who are Pipe Fitters, and they've got other 

people who are black Mechanics, don't they?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And they've got people who are Mechanics, don't they? Whites?

I think our own witnesses can tell you better as to why Hicks

Q. Now, before you went to work for the refinery, you were a

- 102-



A. Yjes, sir-//Q. You don't know what their job is, do you?
A. Yes, I know what their job is. They are helpers, white helpers

IQ. Do you know Prank Williams, for example?

A. Sure, I know Frank Williams.
Q. Isn't he a Senior Mechanic? Hasn't he been a Pipe Fitter for 

over twenty years?
A. I don't know how long he was a Pipe Fitter, because I don't work 

in that department.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

You don't know what they do, do you?-
‘v .

Sure, I know what some of them does out there.

But you still say there aren't any blacks who are Mechanics? . 

Well, you know there ain't none out there; not a Head Mechanic 

or nothing like that.
Now, the company has given all employees out there a raise 

every year, haven't they? Haven't you gotten a raise every 

year in pay?
Yes, we got a little something out there every year, but when 

you come down to a raise now, when they moved me off the 

machine, they cut my pay - my normal pay when they moved me 

off the machine; then put me right back on the machine, and I

run the machine right on and still cut my pay two cents on the

hour.
Q. That's because they had overpaid you two cents an hour, hadn't 

they, then they cut it- back, and then you're back at your

-103-



Q. (bont'd) regular pay, aren’t you?

A. All the years x been out there, I had the two cents.

Q. But they had overpaid you, had they not? Didn’t Mr. Blackwelder

explain that to you?

A. They never overpaid me.
Q. Mr. Blackwelder explained that to you, didn't he?

A. No, he didn't say all that; all that time I was getting overpay 

and all like that.
Q. But he talked to you about it, didn't he? .

A. Yes. He talked to me about it.
i

Q. No. further questions.

EXAMINATION OF MR. WALLACE BY MR. FARRINGTON:

Q. Do you know why Willie Hicks got that job?

A. Because he was a Tom.

Q. Okay. No further questions.

NOTE: The witness withdrew from the stand.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Is. the next witness going to take a while?

MR. FARRINGTON: Yes, sir. The next - well, we have one witness 

we would like to talk to. We think ir we toox a lunch break 

right now, we might shorten the time.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. I'll suspend fob lunch. Let's take a 

recess until two o'clock for lunch.

NOTE: The Court recessed for lunch at one o'clock.

REDIRECT



NOTE:/ The Court reconvened at 2:00 p.m. following a luncheon recess. 

MR. BARRINGTON: Cal], the Plaintiff Adam Baxter.

I-'IR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, excuse me for interrupting, but I see a

couple of people in the back of the room, and they are witnesses. 

MR. FARRINGTON: We do not intend to call them.

MR. SIMPSON: V7ho are they?

MR. FARRINGTON: Mr. Steel.

M R . SIMPSON: And who els;e? -
MR. FARRINGTON: I don't know the other fellow. I never saw him

bQjfore in my life.

M R . SIMPSON: You're not going to call Mr. Steel?

MR. FARRINGTON: I'm not going to call Mr. Steel. This is our last

witness.

MR. AD Ail BAXTER TOOK THE STAND, AND HAVING BEEN DULY SWORN,

TESTIFIED AS FOLLOWS:
DIRECT

EXAMINATION OF MR. BAXTER BY MR. FARRINGTON; 

Q. Would you state your name, please?

A. My name is Adam Baxter.

Q. And where do you live, Mr. Baxter?

A. Route One, Box 456, Augusta Road.
\

Q. Is that in Savannah, Georgia?

A. Savannah, Georgia.

Q. Where are you employed?

-105- 4



A. Savannah Sugar Refinery.

Q. How long have you been employed there?

A. Approximately twenty years.

Q. When did you first go to work out there?

A. I started out there in ’52, 1952.

Q. And when did you become permanent?

A. In '55.

Q. You were on Brass Check for three years?

A. Yes.
Q. Yotr are the same Adam Baxter who is the Plaintiff in this law 

suit?

A. Right, yes.
Q. You filed a charge of discrimination in Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission in January of 1956?

A. Yes,- sir.

Q. Six and a half years ago?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Describe to us if you will what the job situation was compared 

between blacks and whites, when each person went to work at 

Savannah Sugar?
A. Well, it was - it was segregated, white jobs and colored jobs. 

In the Mechanics Department, they- had Pipe Fitters - black, 

but I never known when they had a white-. Pipe Fitter. The 

whites be Welders and what-not.

Q. Were these Pipe Fitters called Mechanics?



Y~ .

u

No. I just said the Mechanics Department because that's the 

name of that, know, but . . .

j. OLi ij.~-.vcr jviicv’ C O  C'.O p i O G  V - .C 'C  JL1VO"

They might have helped because the work out there have things 

so difficult, everybody helps somebody sometime. In other 

words, they classify certain people to certain jobs, but at 

times, everybody does different things. They never do one 

thing.

Did any whites in the Mechanics Department that you know of - 

I 1 in s o r r y .  Did any blacks in the Mechanics Department that you 

know of perform the job that a white would perform like welding 

and this sort of thing? Did you ever see any blacks do that 

on a regular basis?

bell, yes, once, but if I may, this is a Negro. He has been - 

he told me many times that he bought him a home, and he had 

to go through the Personnel to get the papers straight, and 

he had on his paper - he told the people he bought the house 

from that he was a bolder, and Personnel Davis told him after 

he had to bring the papers back to him, that he told him he

was a Welder, but this was just a rumor going around saying
\ '

this Negro was a Welder, which he does weld sometime. He - 

he - he - he has a little x^lsce on the outside from the rest 

of the Welders on the outside. He has a tool box, but he told, 

me that Davis challenged him - Davis in Personnel - that he 

wasn't a Welder, so I was somewhat confused, but if he v/as a

-107-



A. (Cont'd) Welder or not,, because he told me I was going up 

every time no longer than three months ago.

.no > - V j  r - O

Viva Jess

t ime s, but

cUjlv.- he ' s tne only 1.legro

not permanent. He does

I know that does weld some- 

some of all kinds; does pipe

fitting; works as a Helper . . .

Q. Other than in the Mechanic's Department, was there any job

classification that you noticed where both blacks and whites 

worked together when you first went out there?

A. Well, they had, like I said, black Pipe Fitters . . .

Q. Now, I'm talking about outside the Mechanic's Department.

A. Oh, outside the Mechanic's Department.

Q. Were there any jobs that both blacks and whites do?

A. No, I can't recall.

Q. How did you get off the Brass Check?

A. Well, I was on Brass Check reliefing in the Boiler Room for a 

year or better, and I used to - maybe a little unique in 

answering the Foreman yes and no - and one Negro told me, said, 

"If you want a card, you will have to answer the Foreman yes, 

sir, and no, sir." So I told him maybe if that's the way,

I would have to do it. So I started 

and no, sir, and in two weeks time, I 

Davis came told me that he was going 

JUDGE ALAIMO: Now this was back in 19--. 

A. 1955.

JUDGE ALAIMO: '55?

answering him yes 

had a card. The 

to give me a card

, sir, 

Personnel

-103-



A. Yes, sir. That's right.

Q. Nov/, v/hen you say you got a card, that means - you mean to say

yellow card, and then the blue card is for the permanent - 

you know, the ones get permanent - and your Brass Checks, you

or off days or anything. You don't get any bonus or any kind 

of thing that the permanent card people would get.

Q. All right. Are you - are Brass Check employees allowed to 

participate in the company's pension plan?

A . No, they didn't .
Q. They don't get any kind of benefit whatsoever?

A. As far as I know, nonesoever.

Q. Do you know black people that are on Brass Check now?

A. No.
Q. You don't know any that are?
A. No. They - a few years back, they say they eliminate all the 

Brass Check. At least, they changed the card from yellow to 

blue like the permanent.
Q. Before the Brass Check employees were eliminated, do you know 

some blacks who were Brass Check?

A. Oh, yeah.
Q. All right. Could you give us some idea of the length of time 

that those people were on Brass Check?

don't get any kind of franchise benefits; vacation v/ith pay

-109-



A. I knew one man, he got drowned when he came down on the river, 

now long ago. A few years back, and. he said he'd been on Brass 

Check for.thirty-seven years.

JUDGE ALAIHO: vfno is this?

A. This was a fellow named Brown.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Do you know what his first name was?

A. I can't think of it. I don't recall.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Do you know where he lives?

A. No, he got drowned.
JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, when did he get drowned?

A. It's be two or three years ago.
JUDGE ALAIMO: Do you know where he lived before that?

A. I believe it was somewhere in Savannah.
JUDGE ALAIMO: Somewhere in Savannah. Do you know what job classi­

fication he had?

A. He used to work in the Warenouse. He — when he airsc startco 

out as far as I know, if I recall correctly, he was in the 

Green Sugar Department, but they automate that place, and they 

laid off about fifty or sixty Brass Chccj., black. This is when 

he used to work in the Green Sugar Department - all Brass 

Checks, and so after they laid off all these, they kept a 

few of the old ones, and so he was one, and he was Brass Check. 

They never changed him over to a blue card until chey — just 

recently they changed the thing back over to eliminate the 

Brass Check.

- 110-



Q. Was it only black employees who were on Brass Check?

A. All except two.
i'iR. SAPP: Your Honor/ X would l m o  co move no u-iis .̂i*..e co e i.ri<ĉ  

his testimony with respect to some employee named Brown whose 

first name he does not recall. He doesn’t know where he lives 

and is not sure of the department he worJced in. The only 

information he has to whether he was Brass Check or not is 

something the employee told him, which is purely hearsay,

and . . .
JUDGE ALAIMO: He said he worked in the Warehouse. What I want 

you to do is check out your records to see if there wasn’t 

any person by the name of Brown. There’s no point in striking 

this testimony or something like that. If there's any bearing 

to it, I would like to know it.
A. Well-after he left out of the Warehouse, the Green Sugar

Department, they put him in the White Sugar Warehouse Depart­

ment, and this is where he worked until he got drowned, or 

something happened to him.
Q. Now, when you were on Brass Check, were you performing the 

same kind of job that you did after you went on temporary - 

on permanent?

A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Brown was performing the same kind of 

work when he was on Brass Check that he would have performed 

had he been permanent? Was he working with permanent employees

< 3 7 /  <
-111-



1

c

A. Yes, he was.
JUDGE AIAIiiO: Let me ash you this, Mr. Farrington. You have a

richt to discover. Have you made any attempt to discover from 

their record any Brass Check employees? 

q . Your Honor, this is something that we've really only discovered 

about the day before yesterday. I mean we had known about the 

Brass Check employees, but we did not . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: You know, I mean that's - I won't say dereliction - 

but pretty close to it. I mean this is the type of evidence 

that you're relying on. It seems to me you ought to be able 

to get more verification than a statement of a witness who

thinks he knew somebody by the name of Brown who was a Brass
• | ■

Check for thirty-seven years.

Q. Mr. Hill just said what I am about to say. That is not what 

this, case is about.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, let's not go into it.

Q. Well, it's some evidence of discrimination. That's what the 

witnesses are here for. This is not what we rely on to prove 

our case, but it is some evidence of discrimination. Do you 

know why you were on Brass Check for three years for so long?

A. No, I don't because I . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, he gave an explanation a moment ago, which

said that he didn't say sir when he was answering the Foreman. 

Somebody then finally told him to start using sir, and he did,

and he aot on oermanent status. That is what he said. Is
...

- 112 -



JUDGE ALAII-10: (Coat'd) there any other reasons that you know of?

A. Nell, several other reasons that ;you heard from others.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. Did you find it objectionable to say
t

sir to a supervisory employee?

A. /No.
Q.j To your knowledge, do the white jobs out there pay more than 

the black nobs?
•At Well, in my department, I don't actually know, but as far as 

what I heard different 'ones say that the . . .

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I have to object to that.

MR. FARRINGTON: i'll withdraw that.

JUDGE AIAIMO: Yes. Mr. Farrington,it seems to me that the

records will be pretty conclusive on that, wouldn't they, rather 

than getting some witness to give his understanding. He's 

going' to do the best he can, but he doesn't know, does he?

Won't the records be the highest and best eviaence or that?

MR. FARRINGTON: That's correct, Your Honor. I agree with that. 

JUDGE AIAIMO: All right.
Q. Have you ever known a black man to serve in a supervisory 

capacity out there?
A. They7 have one now over the Sanitation Gang as far as what I 

learned.

Q. What is the Sanitation Gang?

A. The Cleaning Gang. It consists all the years of permanent

blacks mopping the floors, sweeping - up until two months ago,
0 s

•113-



/

A. (Cont'd) they hired one white. He's in the gang now.
Y  '

Q. The gang was all black unt jla two montns ago.-'

A.
1
;Right.

Q.

A.•
Do you know whether or not the company has a policy of hiring 

relatives of employees who already work out there?

It appears to me that they have a policy like that, .oecause 

they hire people's relatives. I would say a great percentage 

of people who work out there is related..

Q.•
You have some relatives yourself who work out there?

A.I Yes.
All right.' Tell, if you can, what happens when a new white 

employee is hired? What kind, of jobs do they go into from your

o observations?

A. Well, they has various departments, you know. They hire some

1

•

/whites directly in the General Office, in the Conveyor Depart­

ment, and they hired some oirectly into tne Hecnamc Gang, ano 

I don't know if they just actually promote them right away, 

but they hired some in the Electric Department where I ve 

'worked for approximately seventeen years, and in two weeks 

time, they have a pouchfull of tools, and I worked there all 

those years, and I never received a pouch with tools, and several 

whites came in there much since X was there. They have che 

opportunity to work with electricians who know the job to

■ o Ij(2' learned, and I never been put with a white to be lea.rned 

qlectrician ' s work. I have been working v/ith a white fellow

4



A. (Cont'd) who really don't know that much. They put this white 

fellow with me when one white fellow was sick, and I have to 

learn him most of that job to building motors and things and 

what-not, and I've worked as a Helper as - to him now. In 

most cases, when time to come up to electric work, such as 

transformers and resistor, all these kind of things, he don't 

even know anything about it, and he has to go to Electricians 

who work in that department to find out how you hook-up this 

and hook-up that. This is the kind of fellow I was working 

with. I iiever v/orked with an Electrician who really knows the 

work, unless the time to pull wire in up under a house or 

things like that, and then they would get me to do that kind 

of thing and then they'd turn it back to the Helper and his 

assistant.

Q. Have any blacks been hired off the street directly into the 

Electrician's Helper job?

A. No.

Q. But whites have been hired directly into that job?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, ask him. Don't tell him.

A. Right.

Q. Have any whites ever been hired directly into the Boiler Room 

Helper job?

A. I learned that the one - and that's been about the time I

started working there, and his name was Inman Morgan. He was 

hired as far as I learned right out the street.

-115-



Q. Are there any other blacks in the Electrical - let me back up 

just a minute. What is your regular job classification?

A. Well, it's difficult to say one particular classification,

because I don't know what they have me assigned permanent, but 

I relief in the Boiler Room for all those many years, approxi­

mately eighteen or nineteen years; and also by being reliefer, 

I've worked in the Electric Shop during the other time, and 

as far as my card, they have me assigned to the Electric Depart 

ment, which I are, and since going back and forth to the Boiler 

Room Department and the Electrical Department, I don't know 

just how they have things arranged. I suppose it's how often 

you stay, you know.

Q. Are there any other blacks in the Electrical Department?
A. Just one black.

Q. What does he do?

A. He don't have a permanent job in there either. He carries 

charts and works for the Instrument Department too, and he 

doesn't come in the shop - Electrical Department until after 

dinner, and he be on the charts, you know, and then he comes 

to the Electric Shop, and then he works doing what he does - 

works on motors. We kept the whole plant up with lights, 

rebuilding fixtures like these types throughout the plant and 

oiling motors. We do anything. We don't have no one particu­

lar job when you around the Mechanical Department. It's diffi­

cult to say you're assigned to one particular thing.

- 116-



Q. When you're rebuilding these lights, are you required to go 

throughout the plant?

A. Throughout the plant, yes.

Q. How often would you say that you go into the different areas?

A. Sometimes every day. It depends on those lights there.

Sometimes you can put one in today and it kicks out and grounds. 

The transformer out or they burn out. It's a regular job.

It's a busy thing.

Q. Do your duties require you to go into the front office?

A. Oh, yes. Every office, from the General Superintendent on to 

the restrooms.

Q. Have you observed people working in those offices?

A. Yes.

Q . Have you ever seen a black person working as a secretary in

A. No, never have.

Q. Are there any blacks in that office?

A. One black woman I know of. She's a janitor. She cleans the

floor and she also works in a little kitchen they have, makes ; 

coffee for the officials and what-not. At this place, also there's- 

they hired another Negro in the Laboratory - in the lab. That's 

a place sitting up above the main office, and they had this one 

colored woman they hired maybe less than a year, maybe two years. 

They hired her and she is working in the Laboratory Department.

Q. What sort of system does Savannah Sugar have for promoting

one of those offices?

-117-



Q.' (Cont'd) employees? , \

A. They will go around and tell whoever they want that they will 

give them a promotion or they will let them know. They don't 

have any other means of posting it or anything like that.

Q. Do you know whether or not seniority plays any part in who

/ gets promoted? By seniority, I mean people who have length of 

/ service with the company. Does that play any part that you 

I know of?
A. Definitely not with me, because I'm a black. I feel like because 

I am black, they didn't promote me; and as far as others are 

concerned - with others, it's the same thing. Unless you do 

things in favor of what the company wants you to do, such as if 

a Negro would say "Yes" - "Yes, sir" - keep this kind of thing 

up like that and become subordinate to whatever the Foreman 

says without question and stuff like that, they would be - seem 

to get the first privilege for a position like as I would like 

to add to, that as far as I learned - we started - I cooked up

when they start putting Negroes in positions, I realized that 

every Negro they put in position had - didn't participate. They 

didn't.want to sign cards to participate to get a union, and 

this is the kind of situation for promotion what I am speaking 

of. The same like about those people who take sides with the

a union out there, and we went around to all of the Negroes

and to see could we get them to sign cards to participate, and

i
company officials.

-118



Q. Do you know or have any way of knowing when job vacancies 

become available?

A ■ N o .

Q. Have you ever seen any bulletins placed in the plant advertising 

job vacancies?

A. The only bulletin to my knowledge, and I make a habit of look­

ing at it just about every day - the only promotions was put 

on there was when a Foreman, a white Foreman, going to get a 

position of Superintendent, and they would put that on it.

I don't think they put all of them on it, but certain ones they 

would put on that and tell the effective date it was going to 

start; but as far as the employees, they don't - I never have 

seen any.

Q. Is that to announce the vacancy in that job?

A. They- don't announce the vacancy. They just tell when they 

going to get the promotion.

Q. Oh. It's an announcement that he has already been promoted?

A. That's right, and at a certain date it would be effective..

Q. /ill right. Let's go to your specific complaint, the complaint

which caused you to file this charge with the E.E.O.C. in
\ | )

1966. Would you explain what happened?

A. Well, after the law was passed in '64 implemented in '65, I 

think July 2nd or something like that, the company posted 

something out there about if anyone felt that they was discriminated 

to write Washington. Roosevelt was the chairman, Jr. I just

-119-



A. (Cont'd) can't recall just how he title it. In July or June, 

sometime in the middle of that year, they brought Joe Brinson 

into the Boiler Room to be broken in for (Jperator. That's the 

middle of '65, in July, sometime right during there, so he 

could be filling in for next year. The end of that year - it 

was approximately six months, a Operator went off on pension - 

permanent Operator. The Operator Reliefer, which I worked at 

all the time as a helper, he was promoted to a permanent 

Operator and took the place of this Operator who left on 

pension, and Joe Brinson who came in the middle of that year 

to break in out of the Packing Department Mechanics, he was 

moved up to a Operator Relief where I worked with him for a 

period of time. Six months later, that's when I filed the 

petition. That would be about the first of the year. I filed 

a complaint rather, but time went on, I didn't heard to much 

about it, and another Operator want off on pension - white.

By that time, they had already done put Fred Holiday in to be 

breaking in for a Reliefer Operator. So they moved Joe Brinson 

into this permanent Operator position, and that's when I filed 

a second complaint.

JUDGE AIAIMO: When was that?

A. This was approximately the middle part of January of '66, and 

so after Joe Brinson moved into the permanent position, Fred 

Holiday became my assistant. He was the Operator who I worked 

with as a helper.

- 120 -



/I

Q. All right. Where did Holiday come from, do you know?

A. /He came out of the Mechanics Department. .

Q. Had he worked in the Boiler Room previously?

A. No.

Q. These Operators that you are referring to. What are their job 

responsibilities?

A. Maintaining the machines in the Packing Room; Joe Brinson was.

Q. No. What did they do in the Boiler Room?

A. They operate a boiler, the controls on it to control the boiler 

sbeam.

Q. Are they the senior employee in the Boiler Room?

A. Yes.

Q. How many other Operators are there altogether?

A. Including Frank Williams, which is a Negro, they break him in 

a few years ago. He was the fifth.

Q. Prior to the time you filed your complaint and prior to the 

time that Frank Williams came in there, were any of the

Operators white - I mean any of them black?

A. No.

Q. They were all white?
\  ^

A. All white.

Q. All right. Now, as I understand it, each Operator has a 

helper, is that correct? x

A. Yes.

Q. Were any of these helpers white?

- 121-



A. I
Q.

A.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Q\
A.

Q.
A.

Q.

All black.
The two men, Holiday and Brinson, who were promoted to the 

Operators job, they were white?

They were white.
And one of them had not been in the Boiler Room previously? 

Neither.

Had not begn in the Boiler Room previously?

N o .
You had been there seventeen years?

Right.
Do you know anyone in the Boiler Room - I believe the two people 

you mentioned came out of the Mechanics Gang. Do you know of 

anybody who worked in there and did not come out of the Mechanics 

Gang?

Yes.

Who was that?

Eulis Hodges. !j

Do you, know v/here he came from?

1-Ie came out of the Paint Gang. It's the same gang I came out 

of one week prior to when I was put in there. He went in
. "  ! j

there one Monday and I v/ent in there the following Monday, out 

of the Paint Gang.

Did he go from there to the Boiler Room?
-i

Yes.
1

Do you know any others who might not have come - how about John
..................................: . . .  . . „  . . .  . . .  ........................................... ...........................'

- 122-



Q. (Cont'd) Andrews? Do you know John Andrews?

A. dohn Andrews came out of the Packing Department.
I

Q. iDid he work in the Boiler Room?/
A. They put him in there to break in. He's the first one they

put in to be breaking in. They reliefed him out of there, and 

that's when they brought Fred Holiday, and he stayed in there 

a very short period of time. They reliefed him out of there.

Q. Nov/, Frank Williams, who is Frank Williams?

A. He is a Negro.

Q. All right. What is his job?

A. He used to be a Pipe Fitter, but now he was broken in to be an 

Operator Relief - a third or second relief.

Q. That was the job classification which you sought to be promoted 
to?

A. The job which I sought to be promoted to was the permanent 

Operator position which Joe Brinson's holding now.

Q. Do you recall when Frank Williams came to work there; I mean 
in the Boiler Room?

A. Yes.

Q. When was that?

A. It was about four years ago. Approximately four years after 

a Negro permanent Operator Helper went on pension, but as I

was the reliefer, I v/as v/orking in his place after he left, and
\

they brought Frank Williams in there to be broken in as a 

helper. I was breaking, him in as a helper. I was called to
A  £ 3  k

-123-



A. (Cont'd) the office to accept the helper position which this
i I

Negro had just left, and I was working in his place by being 

a reliefer - to accept this permanent position as a helper.

It was by Mr. Vicky Bersijay then; this was the Plant Superin­

tendent. I told him that I would work any place in the plant

they put me in, which they usually do, and be loyal and be

/■ consumed in the work and everything, but I w'asn't going to
.  . \sign no'agreement which he was talking about he wanted me to 

agree to accept the position, and so I - that's when I told 

him that I feel like I should have gotten an Operator's 

position which I went through the position which I already 

done filed a.petition that I went through this . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: When was this, Mr. Baxter?

A. This was about four years ago, and so I let him know that I

been discriminated against and I felt like I should have gotten 

an Operator's position. So he told me that if I had the experience 

at the position of the permanent helper, that he would make sure 

that the next preference as an Operator, I would have gotten■ v J

the job. So I told him that I thought there wouldn't be any 

more preference or openings for me if I become a permanent 

helper because they never have, and so he told me, said, "Go 

back on the job." I mean . . .

Q. Have you ever known any helper to be promoted from Helper to 

Operator?

A. No,

124-



Q. What's your educational background, Mr. Baxter?

A. I finished high school with the G.E.D.

Q. When did you finish high school?

A. In '69.

Q. When did you begin the G.E.D. course?

A. In '66, right after I filed the petition, and I also went out 

to Savannah State College and took up a course in Sociology, 

Psychology, and Human Relations, but I wasn't admitted. I 

just went and took that course.

JUDGE ALAIMO: IIow old are you?
v ’ ,!

A. Forty.

Q. Mr. Baxter, I have your Employment Record Card which the company
l :has offered as an exhibit. I don't know which number it is. 

CLERK: The number on the personnel file is number one.

Q. Exhibit One. There are some entries on it which I would like 

to read to you. In the first place, let me ask you this.

Prior to today, did you ever know that these things existed;
•Ithat personnel cards like this existed?

. !
A. No, I never have.

Q. Have you ever seen one?

A. No, I haven't. •i
Q. Have you ever been told that a file like this was maintained 

on you?
j j

A. No, I never have. ,1

JUDGE ALAIMO: So what? I mean I don't understand this.



Q. The problem Mr. King was talking about, Your Honor, the policy -

the practice of the company of putting reprimands in an employee's

file and not telling him about it. On August 17, 1965, Mr.

Baxter, there is the following entry: "On August 11, 1965,

at approximately 9:00 a.m., I talked with Adam Baxter, card 
/ * ’/number 403, concerning him not doing his job properly as a

Boiler Room Helper, and when Foreman Inman Morgan talked with 

Baxter,, received quote "smart, sarcastic answers." I explained
I •

to Baxter that this type talk and conduct could not and would

Superintendent." : Would you explain to the Court what happened? 

A. I think I remember it well. This was a particular morning;

up in the Boiler Room, the readings on the meters and those 

kinds of things - the records - and carried them to the office 

in the Engineering Department; and when I came back, Mr. Morgan —

Inman Morgan - he told me that I goes over there and talks
. |!with this Negro man that used to be a janitor over there.

j
He's on pension now — Steel, Steel Gunther — and I tola him I

didn't used to talk with him to kill time, and so he asked me,
j

says,‘"When you go over there, you can't come back no quicker
11

than you do?" I said, "Yes, if I run."' And so he didn't
Isay anything else. He went and called the Superintendent 

.Davidson and told him.

not be tolerated. Signed Charles E. Davidson, Assistant

0 we usually - I usually gathered the charts that they take

' \ V *
Q. That was the extent of that conversation?

-126-
— '—



A. Yes, sir. i

Q. "On June 28, 1968, Adam Baxter was working as Boiler Room Helper 

and he was told to get a lunch for the Boiler Room Operator.

He refused to get the lunch. Because it has always been a 

practice and an expected responsibility of the helpers to do 

this task; for instance, it's because safety requirements do 

not allow an Operator to leave the area post; when Operator 

Fred Holiday asked Baxter how he, meaning Holiday, was going
|j

to eat, Adam Baxter replied that he didn't care. Holiday 

reported the incident to R. Edwards who in turn questioned 

Baxter. His excuse was that he didn't feel too good. Ralph 

Edwards informed Baxter in the presence of the Foreman
j!

Holiday that bringing the Foremaxi his lunch is a responsibility 

he must accept when he is working as a helper on that station 

and that he will be expected to comply with this rule. Signed: 

R. Edwards, Maintenance Superintendent." Would you explain 
w what happened?

|
A. Well, that particular day I didn't felt well in the stomach,

H
and he asked me . . .

i|Q. Where had you been working just prior to this?
i-x-, ||A. In the Boiler Room. And first of all, it never been told that
|that was anyone's duty or job to get anyone's lunch on the
if

job. It's never been told or never been told to me by anyone 

else, not as I know of. I
JUDGE AIAIMO: Had you been doing that before?

■ 1
-127-



A. Well, I does it sometime when they ask me to do it; not onlyi \
him, but the Negro helpers too.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, I don't mean only him. I mean has it been
i

done before?

A. Sure. Negroes too, and most of them that been through that 

I department.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right.
I ■ ■ '

Aj And that particular day, I wasn't feeling well, and I told him 

I didn't felt well, and he called Mr. Ralph Edwards and told 

him about it, and I told him the same thing, "I'm not feeling 

well." In fact, I didn't even get dinner for myself. I didn't 

have dinner.'

Q. What was your physical condition on that day?

A. Well, I was feeling upset in the stomach.

Q. Were you sweaty?

A. Well, I was exhausted from sweating because I just had came

down off the top of the Boiler and was wet - pretty wet and - IIIclothes, you know.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well, is that unusual in a Boiler Room?
' iA. Yes, sir.'' It was in the Boiler Room.

\ ' x
JUDGE ALAIMO: I say, is that unusual'in a Boiler Room - if you're

working around a boiler, to get sweaty? Is that unusual?
\

A. Yes. Where they work - where we work downstairs, the fire is 

way up there, you see. You can work with a white shirt as far 

as the Foreman are concerned or being an Operator, but the

................t ---------.. ........... ........- J
- 128-



I

A. (Cont'd) helper's got to go on top of the boiler which is

I about seven or eight stories high, and all the heat's up there.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All right. He wasn't sweating because he was sick 

now, 1-lr. Farrington. He had something wrong v/ith'his stomach. 

Q. Were there other people in the area who could have.gone to get 
the lunch for this man?

A. Not particularly right in that Boiler Room, but people come 

through there every day from the Mechanics. The Mechanics

gets dinners for them. They got Charles out the Warehouse 

Department which goes and gets dinners and brings it back for 
them. He could have seen someone coming by.

Q. Has anybody ever told you prior to this one day in question

that it was a part of your responsibility to get lunch for the 
Foreman?

A. Never have. ^

Q. All right. "On October 29, 1969, Adam Baxter was observed

today around 1:00 p.m. by the Assistant Superintendent 0. E.

Grebenburg on the roof directly over the Florida Raw Sugar 

Unloading Station. Subject employee was observed standing 

north against wall of the building housing conveyors

JUDGE ALAIMO: And when you go up there, you get sweaty?
A. Yes.

JUDGE ALAIMO: But that's not unusual for a helper?

A. No, that's not unusual for a helper.

fellow, you know, they got a fellow sometimes he goes over and

129- d



Q. (Cont'd) of "C" bin in the process of urinating against wall 

and on roof. Although Baxter noticed that he was observed by 

Grebenburg, he offered no reason or excuse for his action. 

Signed L. E. D." Would you tell the Court what happened?

A. Well, this incident came up one particular day which Mr.

Vicky Bersijay had called me in his office. This had all 

happened after I didn't accept the position as a helper and 

had gone to my work, and he called me in his office and he 

told me that somebody saw me urinating on the roof. I told hi 
it was impossible. It couldn't have been me because I never 

have urinated on the roof because too many restrooms all 

around, and so he - I asked him, "Who told you that," and he 

said, "Never mind," and he didn't told me. He wouldn't tell 

me who tell him, and he asked me, "Did you urinate on the 

roof?" and I told him, "No, I didn't." So he told me to go 

on back, and I told him I would be careful next time but I 

never did - it was a disgrace to me. I thought it was an 

humane thing for him to accuse me of.

Q. Then the entry on this card is incorrect?

A. Yes.

Q. Did anybody ever tell you that these things were entered on 

your personnel file?

A. No. Nobody has ever told me.

Q. When did you first seek this promotion? Let's go back just a 

minute. When did you first seek this promotion to the Boiler

-130-



Q. (Cont'd) Room Operator's job? Do you remember what year it
/ ' ' was ?

A. I January the 2nd is when I made the complaint, 196G.

Q. No. When did you first try to get the job?

A. This was the first time.

Q. And you made your complaint right after that?

A. Yes. I never - in fact, when they posted - as I mentioned 

previously, they posted this thing up and it had anyone felt 

that they been discriminated to write Washington, Roosevelt,

Jr., the Chairman of this Discrimination Department, so that's 

what I did. I felt like I was discriminated and they hadn't 

done anything about giving me the position, so I filed a 

petition.
Q. Okay. When you went out, first went to work out there, were 

the toilet facilities and dining facilities and what-have-you 

segregated by race?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Is there any segregation still out there? !'VIx  w o u x c i  s a y  y e s  a n u  n o  e u  e n a u .

Q. Well, how yes and no?
ji

A. Well, in the Boiler Room Department, they have a restroom in l| . ijthere which they have two doors and a little petition between
iiwith one little cover-up place without windows or any kind of

ventilation, but since then they knocked the petition out, closed 

one door and guard it on the rush hour, and they put a padlock



A. (Cont'd) on this door on the outside and got a hook and eye 

on the inside, and the Boiler Room Operators all has a key to 

go in there, and then they go in there and get the key and go 

in and hook the hook and eye on the inside so no one can come 

in. There's just two - only two commodes in there and they 

use it this way, but at times they wouldn't lock it.

Q. Okay. Is there a - do you know whether they have restrooms 

at the Gate House?

A. Yes. There's one at the Gate House.

Q. Do you know whether they are integrated?

A. As far as my knowledge, they keep a lock on that. The gate

attendant, he keeps the lock - keeps the door locked; and to
l '

my knowledge, no one can go in there until they go to him, 

and I have seen white employees go over there and telling him, 

and he open the door, but I never seen any colored employees 
go down there.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Has any colored employee been forbidden?

A. I don't know as they ever asked.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Do you know from anything you have seen are the 

white employees treated any differently from black employees 

with respect to that facility?

A. No more than they keep it locked, and then they get ready to 

use it, they go to him and ask him to open it.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Do you know of any black employee that has been 

refused the use of it?

-132-



A. No, I haven't.

f >
V  '

#

JUDGE AIAIMO: All right.

Q. Do you know whether or not white persons use locker rooms
ttogether with blacks?

A. They say they have the lockers integrated but I never seen a 

white changing clothes in any of them.

Q . /■ Since -you filed the complaint in this case or with the E.E.O.C.,
. . \

and since this suit was filed, have you experienced any diffi­

culty from plant officials or employees - any specific incidences 

you can recall?

A. That happened directly to me?

Q. Yes.
* j!A. Yes.

Q. Would you relate what some of those are?

A. Well, once upon a time in the Electric Department, there was S 5
a fellow by the name of Willie Rose. He was a co-worker in 

the Electric Department, and J was carrying out trash one
II ' • Imorning and I was rolling the can on the edge to bring it up ji; ' to the opening so I could carry it out to the little buggy, and 

the can brushed up on his pants leg - I didn't touch him because 

I never felt it, and I still don't felt like I touched him - and 

he wanted to fight me.

JUDGE AIAIMO: Who was this?

A. Woddy Rose.'
<
JUDGE AIAIMO: Is he white?

;..... , ........., _____________ ___________ _______________________ ________ ________________ [

-133-



A . He's white.

JUDGE ALAIMO: He's just another employee?

A. Just another employee, yes. And so - and another time, he

attacked me. Him and I were doing some kind of work together 

something or another we were doing together - and he told me 

that I .supposed to do something - no, he told me I was the 

head of the job that we were doing. I told him he was the 

head of it because he was the one that they sent to do the job 

They just sent me to help out, and so he said that several 

times and all of a sudden he wanted to hit me again. So I 

took the lower end of it. And another incident that - with

a Negro, and several incidences with Negroes - one Negro, he
! '

wanted to slap me two different times that . . .

Q. Did he give you any reason?

A. Well, he said I was making a disturbarc e with the company and 

making things bad for them, and he told me, said if I wasn't 

satisfied with the job, to quit, and so . . .

Q. Who was this?

A. This was a fellow by the name of Joe Wilson.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Joe Milson?

A. Wilson.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Wilson?

A. Wilson.

Q. Did anybody ever turn any steam on you or try to do that?

A. Yes, Fred Holiday in the Boiler Room Department. We catch



A. (Cont'd) the water samples - the helper does - to carry to the 

/Lab to have it checked, and I was standing to the window and

jI saw him when he went back and turned the valve on which - aI
cool valve, which if you turn the steam on, you got to open a 

water valve also, and by that water, if I had to turn the water 

on with this steam on also, it would have had a combustion, and 

it would have probably burned me, but I saw him when he did it, 

and I turned the steam off after he called me to catch a sample, 

and so I turned it off and he went back to his office. I 

tuxned it off and I went and catched'the sample and gave it 

to him, and then I told him about it, and he denied that he 

did it, and I told him I saw him when he did it, and he said 

if he did it he wasn't knowledge of it, but I looked at him 

when he did it.

Q. Anybody ever ask you to break any rules? :

A. Yes.

Q. Explain that.
II

A. Well, it was a new Negro they hired which his daddy worked there 

He threatened me once too, the daddy did. li
Q. Well, just tell me about when he asked you to do something

'' - j|illegal?
!|

JUDGE ALAII10: Who is he talking about first, the new employee or 
the new employee's father? \

\ ,

A. The new employee there.

JUDGE ALAIMO: And what v/as his name?



A. Hubert Coleman.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Coleman?

A. Yes. He worked in the lab - in the plant lab - which they had 

one on each shift, and he worked in this lab.

Q. And what did he ask you to do for him?

A. /He asked me to punch his card out. In other words, he told me

/. he was going to knock off two hours - he was knocking off two 
. \

j hours before time and asked did I work in the Boiler Room.
. j. ■ ..

I have to stay'there, and he told me to punch his card out.

So I told him to look on his card, that you can't do that. So 

I didn't punch his card, and so I told him why I believe they 

want him to get me to punch his card out, and I asked him who 

did it - told him this because I didn't felt like he know 

because he was sort of new.

Q. Who told him to tell you that?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Well now, wait a minute. Let him tell the story.

A. Vicky - Super - I mean - I'm sorry. It was two Superintendents 

he told me was in his presence when they told him, and this 

was Ecksley and Grebenburg, the two shift Superintendents.

JUDGE ALAIMO:^Told Wilson?

A. Told Coleman.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Coleman?

A. Coleman to get me to punch his card out, and so I refused, and

about six months later, he came and told me the same thing. 

So I went through the detail then, and I told him I believe

-13G-



Q. (Cont'd) they're trying to fire me, and this is the reason 

why they want, you know, get me to punch his card, and so he 

told me that he knowed it, and so he walked back and went on 

back out to his car, and I didn't punch him out that time either, 

blit he never did have any more questions of no more that he
< ■

told me he knows.
il

JUDGE AIAIMO: Let me ask you this, Mr. Baxter. Did Coleman tell
i

you that these two Supervisors suggested to him that he ask
ll

you?
{|A. Yes. i

JUDGE ALAIMO: Is this Coleman still working out there?

A. Yes.

(: * 
\

I.i.

Q. Do you know of any incidents where a black employee or any 

employee has been fired for asking for a raise?

A. Not directly, but as far as hearing about things - the dissemina­

ting news that goes around, that's all I knows, as far as being 

there and knowing . . .
<

Q. Let me ask you this question. Is there a general belief among 

blades in the plant that the company has fired people for 
asking for raises?

^  jlA. Yes.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I have objected to this question many

times before, and I have got to object again. This witness is
ilnot qualified to answer a question as to what the belief of |t
11

many are concerned.

________________ ____J.?7 ■ 1'
-137-



JUDGE ALAIMO: You know, I realize your problem of proof, but on
II
ft he other hand, you've come to a point of which I don't know

'whether as to how long we can relax the customary and traditionalI
rules of evidence. Nov/, unless there's some connection between 

the company and this kind of feeling in his mind, what relevance 

does such evidence have? I ]
Q. The relevance, Your Honor, is that the company presents an

image to its employees of visiting retribution laws for trying 

to gain a promotion and trying to desegregate the plant.

JUDGE AIAIMO: He says that they still haven't, you know, specified 

any act on the part of the company that would give a logical 

creation of such a belief.
jj

Q. Mr. Baxter, do you believe they will do that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.
JUDGE AIAIMO: Do what? Fire you if you ask for a promotion?

A. At that particular time, that's prior to my bringing to his 

knowledge of filing a petition.

JUDGE AIAIMO: Oh.

i
i

A. Prior to that, I felt like the company would have fired anyone
!iv/ho asked for a raise who they want to fire, but certain ones iji!they wouldn't fire.

JUDGE AIAIMO: Well, v/hy would they need .that kind of an excuse
x  v

to fire somebody if they didn't want them?
.

A. Well, this incident came about - it v/as three Negroes I learned
______ _____ , - * ? t * .  • _  =  '

T
-138-



A. (Cont'd) signed a petition for a raise to get equal with the - 

this was a sugar stand that they was working on drying sugar 

which is the low grade stand - dry the green sugar, what they 

call it. In the White Sugar Department, they had sugar dryers, 

and the White Sugar Department they claim, was getting a nickel 

more; so they wanted to get the same thing, and I learned that 

they put their names on there to ask - these three sugar dryers 

on the low grade stand to get equal raises - and when they get 

to the office, the man who had been - handed them the petition, 

he was the one that was fired because he didn't taught the
.

company for not knowing they was wrong to do it.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Who were those three people? Do you remember?

A. All I know is they called one man Louisiana Slim. They 

claimed he came from Louisiana with the company.
it[ I

JUDGE ALAIMO: Did you see such a petition? j:
A. No.

JUDGE ALAIMO: It was just what somebody else said?
IA. That's right. During the time they get rid of this man - it
i !:was Howard Sprague, I remember now.

Q. Is this incident - is there common knowledge of this incident
. ii

in the plant?

A. Yes.

MR. SIMPSON: Your Honor, I object to that . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: Really now, Mr. Farrington, this is not very proba­

tive. I can understand that in this man's mind, as in any

-139-



JUDGE ALAIMO: (Cont'cl) black's mind, it wouldn't take much for 

them to believe that the company was going to discriminate 

against them. I realize that, but nevertheless, this kind 

of evidence is really not fairly probative of such a point.

Q. We are not offering the evidence for the fact that it happened.
We are offering the evidence for . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: To explain his state of mind?

Q. That blacks in the plant know — believe these things to be 
true.

JUDGE ALAIMO: All rignt. But, I mean, how would this go to sustain 

your position unless they are responsible for it?

Q. Well, it's just a facet of the company's general policy of
i •

discrimination against blacks.

JUDGE ALAl MO: How is it? You're talking about a state of mind
I!

here that you yet have not pointed out to any real probative 

fact to make it a — to cause it, and you're saying that this is 

evidence of a general company policy. I don't understand you
j!on that.

Q. Would the Court indulge us just for a minute?

JUDGE ALAIMO: Certainly. I will allow his statement to the fact 

that this is the way felt now, and this is the way that, if
j|

he knows, the other blacks felt about it in the plant, but 

that's as far as I can see it at this point . . .

Q. Begging your pardon, Your Honor . . .

JUDGE ALAIMO: . . . this evidence proves any of it.

-140-



Q. . . . we can't prove - can't prove any of it . . .
iJUDCjfE A LAI MO: . . .  or presents a rational basis for it, you know,

yet.
Q. Do you know v/ho makes the determination as to who gets a 

promotion out there?

A. No.
Q. Has it ever been explained to you?

A . N o .

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.
A.

Q.
A.

Q.
A.

Q.

A.

Mr. Baxter, I believe you said you lived out on Augusta Road. 

Hoy; long have you lived out there?
Forty years.

What kind of a house do you live in?

I live in a ranch style house.

How many rooms has it got?

Ten rooms and three baths.

Hoy-; many children do you have?
Six.
Who built that house?

I did.

What part of it did you do?

All of it.

Did you do the wiring? v
\

The additional Y;iring. " x
Hoy; about the plumbing? Did you do the plumbing?
Yes.

|t

li

-141



I

JUDGE 1A.LAIMO: What is the additional wiring? What is that?r
A. Well, T. J. Hopkins wired - I started out with three rooms.

I
JUDGE ALAIMO: I see. You gradually built on as you raised the 

money?

A. Right.

Q. How long did it take you to build the house?

I\. Approximately eleven years.

Q. You've been doing it how long exactly?

A. (No answer.)

Q. NoHLurther questions.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Were you in service, Mr. Baxter?

A . N o . I!
JUDGE ALAIMO: You were too young?

A. No, I wasn't too young, but I received a letter saying I wasn't 

pass their exam or something li3ce that.
i:JUDGE ALAIMO: Go aneact M r . Simpson.

CROSS
iiEXAMINATION OF I1R. BAXTER BY MR. SIMPSON: I

Q. Mr. Baxter, your regular job four days a week, is that of a
||Senior Electrician's Helper, is it not? Isn't that what you do
|'

regularly four days a week?

A. I usually goes in the - just recently, they changed me altogether, 

They, break in another Negro, take me out of the Boiler Room

altogether; but prior to that, I used to be working as a fourthSi

-142-



A. (Cont'd) they told me that I was working as a fourth man in

■v. /the Boiler Room, as a fourth man. I was working . .

w

Q. j Let me ask the questions . . .I
A. . . .  in there three days a week.

Q. Let me ask the questions. In 1957, you became an Electrician's 

Helper, did you not, and you've been an Electrician's Helper 

ever since then, haven't you?

A. Well, I work in that department.
ij

Q. And your regular job title is Electrician's Helper?

A. And I was working in there since-fifty - same time I start in 

the Boiler Room.

Q. In 1957 -- and I ’m asking the questions - in 1957, you became.

an Electrician's Helper?

A. In 1953, somewhere around there.
ji

Q. Well, you were a Brass Check employee in 1953?
I

A. Yes.

Q. In 1955, you went on card. In 1957, you became an Electrician's 
Helper?

A. I was doing the same thing I am doing now.

Q. Then you want in in 1959, two years later, is when you first 

started'relief in the Boiler Room, isn't that right?

A . N o .

Q. You went - you began relief in the Boiler Room after you became
\

an Electrician's Helper, isn't that right'?' j

A. No. I leave off the Paint Gang, went into the Boiler Room to

it

<§3^0
-143-



f That's what happened, 
A . !(cont1 d) break in for an Operator Relief.

I
I That's been in 1 9 b 3 .

q  you were still a Brass Check employee in 195 . • •
' chedc i was a Brass Check and was doing

A I was still a Brass Chech.
"  ' ' rl. They never changed the work. but they changedthe same work. J-ncy

the - give me a different card.
„ vou’ve done the  same work ever since 

JUDGE ALAIMO: in Other words, you j
you were employed m  1953?

A. Right.
JUDGE ALAMO: The same work?
A same work, never any different.

' d in the Electrical Department, and yoh ve
q . You've been employed m  the E ^

, . i tt/3i r icn c- „„ , ccnior Electrician s ^lpci,"been assigned as - ~.emo
right? isn't that your job?
r v e  never worked with an Electrician. 1 woi..ce . . .

*■„ asking you whether or not your job is that of a Senior
, isn't that your job title? AnswerElectrician’s Helper. Isn t t

yes or no.. That's a very simple question. ^
■ It seemE difficult to answer that yes or no. because I - no

a Senior Electrician's Helper.
you're an Electrician's Helper, are you not?

title, isn't it; \
X fix lights and maybe fix a motor

A.

Q

A

Q

Q

X fix ligms diitA
you work in the Electrical -par—  as a

-144-



A. But sec, in this department, they have Electrician out there
i l

doing electrical work, but I works with a man - we usually 

rebuilding motors, fix light fixtures in my job,and he doesn't 

know very much about electrical work.
I

Q. All right. Nov;, that's all part, of the job in the Electrical 

I Department, is it not?

A. But 1 never worked with an Electrician as a helper like these
/ -  ■ . \
I whites worked with 4n Electrician. The whites only ones works
i
I -with an Electrician as a helper.

Q. But do you deny - now, I'm just trying to get at a basic fact. 

Do you deny that your regular job is in the Electrical Depart­

ment?

A. No. I'm not saying ray regular job is in the Electrical Depart­

ment .

Q. Where is your regular job? j!
A. They told me that I was - after I asked for a raise several ()

times, they told me, said I'm on the Boiler Room Station, that
j

I can't get a raise in the Electrical Department - what they
' . ' ij

call a seniority raise because I would be getting different 

pay from-what the Boiler Room Department getting, so I couldn’tijN 'get no seniority raise in the Electric Department.

Q. All right. Let me ask you this question. Your rate of pay as 

an Electrician's Helper is a greater rate of pay than what the 

Boiler Room Helper's get, isn't that right?

A. I don't think so. I'm not sure.
___ _____  ____________ _________ _ 'SQ'SQ __________ ______________________

-145-



Q. Well, don't you know?

A . N o ,

Q. Isn't it true that whenever you serve as a Boiler Room Helper 

which carries a lower rate of pay than the Electrician's
/
Helper, you've been paid the same rate as an Electrician's 

Helper, isn't that right?

A'. N o .
\

Haven't you always been }f>aid the highest rate of pay?

A . N o .

Q. You haven't?

A. No.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.
A.

When weren't you not paid the highest rate of pay?

This is what they done - the company do. The company, since 

I filed a petition, they raised the Boiler Room Helper, I
ij

think, about fifteen or twenty cents. I don't know if they
ii

raised them up with what I get or went over or what, but I went 

to them for a raise, and they told me I couldn't get nothing, 

that I was making the same thing. ' i‘
-

You get a raise - haven't all of the employees at the plant
.

been given a raise every year for the past few years?
ii\  ' vThey didn't . . .

An hourly rate raise?

Yes.
J ■

And you've gotten that every year, have you not?

Yes.
I*

_L
-146-



Q. All right. Now, let's go on to some other questions. You 

filed your complaint witfi the E.E.O.C. in' January of 1966, 

isn't that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And on January 1, 1966, a man named Eulis Hodges became the 

/ Boiler Room Operator, did he not? lie took a man named Stokes 
/ place., didn't he?

A /. He was -the Operator all t̂ he time. When he become - he was the 

Operator Relief which I worked with then.

Q. All right. And now hasn't Eulis Hodges been an Operator Reliefer 

since about 1954? He'd been reliefing as a Operator the entire 

time you had been in the Boiler Room, hadn't he?

A. Yes. He came in there a week before I did.

Q. All right. Don't you consider that Eulis Hodges was far more 

qualified for that job than you were?
A. Yes, because he was taught. j‘
Q. A n d ■he 1d been doing that job since 1954, hadn't he?
A. Yes. !
Q. He had more seniority than you did , didn'

j;
t he?

A. One week.

JUDGE A LA IMO: Was he white?

A. Yes, he was white. ■ j!

JUDGE ALAIMO: But you say he had been taught
J

. In other words,
l!

is it your contention that he had been trained better than you



Q.
A.

Q.

A.

Q.
A.

Q.
A.

Q.
A.

Q.

Yes* Well, he - well, I wasn't being trained to be an Operator 

I always trained to be a Helper, and he was trained to be an 

Operator. He went in there six months prior to when they 

release him . . .

And he's been doing that since 1954, hasn't he?

Earlier than that. He came in there in '53 sometime, and it 

might have been the early part of *54, but I think it was in 

'53, and I came in. /
‘

Now, you were offered twice, were you not, the job of being a 

permanent relief in the Boiler Room-instead of being a relief 

in the Electrical Department?

Yes, after I had already filed a petition, and Mr. Vicky 

Bersijay — as I previously mentioned - that he - after this 

Negro helper permanent went off on pension and I took his 

X^lace and he offered to - want me to accept that permanent 

position and give me the next preference after I had mentioned

about my seniority of being an Operator.

You say Mr. Bersijay promised you this?

Yes, sir. Seniority - next preference as an Operator if I 
had accept this . . .

As an Operator?

Yes, if I had to accept this . . .

If you'd do the job as a Permanent Helper?
\

Yes.

i!

I

And you turned down the job of Permanent Helper, didn't you?

-148



i!

•3

A. Well, I told him that I didn't felt like a Helper or Permanent 

Helper would ever get a promotion because they never have, 

and I didn't see anyway I could have gotten a chance of being 

a Permanent Operator.

Q. And so they put Ned Singleton in that job, didn't they?

A. They brought Frank Williams in the Boiler Room part-time.

Q. They put Ned Singleton in the job of Permanent Relief Helper 

when you wouldn't take the ĵob, isn't that right?

A. No, it's not that simple. They brought Frank Williams in

there and started breaking him in as a Helper, and they told 
me to think it over.

Q. They brought Frank Williams in there as an Operator Relief, 
didn't they?

1
A. They brought Frank - I was breaking Frank in as a Helper. He 

was working v/ith me. I - I - he worked with me until they got

ready to bring Ned Singleton in there to make a new arrangement.
ii

Q. Didn't Frank Williams, who was black, didn't he actually IIf_

[i
A. Yes, I worked under him.

Q. You worked under him, didn't you, and he went in as a Relief
!Operator, didn't he? I!

A. Yes. Many times, I had to show him what to do. i
Q. All right. You're not qualified to be an Operator now, are you?

J|
A. I don't know all the functions of the Boiler Room, but I know 

a great deal about it by observing from the time I was there,
.....  ______  I14 9



A. (Cont'd) and things like that, but I don't know all of the

functions and fundamental principles of the controls and what­
not .

Q. The present Operators who are Eulis Hodges and Brinson and

Inman Morgan are more qualified to be Operators than you are, 
are they not?

A. I assume they are because they was learned by the Operators 

to be Operators. /

Q. Do you remember when your deposition was taken in 1963? Do

you remember admitting at that time that you weren't qualified 

to be an Operator?

A. Well, I think I stated something like what I just said, that 

I wasn't qualified to be an Operator because I didn't know 

all functions or the procedures.

JUDGE ALAIMO: As I understand in his complaint, Mr. Simpson, and 

as I recall, he testified to the effect that he wasn't offered 

the same type training opportunities as these whites who 

later became Relief Operators and Operators.

Q. All right, Your Honor. I will ask him some questions out of 

his deposition.

MR. JOHNSON: What page is that?

Q. Do you remember your deposition being taken on April 17,

1969, here in Savannah?

A. I can't recall the date, but I remember when I was on a 

deposition.



Q. And do you remember that you gave this deposition under oath? 

A. Yes.

Q. And that questions were asked of you by a Mr. Hoover who was

the attorney for Savannah Sugar Refining Corporation, and that 

you were represented at the deposition by your attorney Mr.

Hill, is that correct?

A. I know Mr. Hill, but I forgot his name - Mr. Hoover.

Q. You remember Mr. Hill being/ there, don't you?

A. Yes, I know Mr. Hill. He was there.

JUDGE AIAII10: Now, just a minute. You know, there's no original
jldeposition of Mr. Baxter in the file.
;|; |

Q. I'm on cross examination, Your Honor, and . . .

JUDGE A LA IMG: We 11, I understand that. I understand you are, but 

I would like the opportunity to go along with his testimony 

to your questions, and I thought there might be one in the file. 

Q. No, sir. The deposition is not part of the evidence in this 

case. The deposition was taken for the jnirpose of discovery.
i iJUDGE ALAIMO: You mean nothing was filed as part of the record?

Q. No, sir.

JUDGE ALAIMO: Okay, proceed.

Q. I'll ask you these questions and ask you whether this is

ii

still I
your testimony.

MR. FARRINGTON: What page is that?

Q . Page twenty-two,

NOTE: Reading from deposition of 7idam Baxter.

—  $ U k

-151-



Q. "Have you ever made .a request to the company to be an Operator?"
i i

Answer: "No, I haven't." Question: "Do you consider yourself

qualified at the present time to be a regular Operator?"

Answer: "No, t don't." Do you consider yourself to be qualified
now?

/ ' !: 
A./ Well, I don't say I can just go out and without the training

thatthey give these others - they give them six - they stay 
. - . \in there at least six month/3 .

JUDGE A LA II10: I consider him to say that he is not qualified 
right now to do that.

Q. All right. That's my point. If Your Honor is satisfied,
I am.

JUDGE AIAIMO: Yes. But he says the reason is that he hasn't

been afforded the same opportunities for training that others
would be around there.

Q. Well, we'll get to that, Your Honor.

JUDGE AIAIMO: All right.

Q. Do you remember when Andrews was tried out there in the Boiler 
Room?

A. Andrews?,,

Q. Yes. Do'you remember a man named Andrews being tried out?

He's from the Packaging Department.

A. Oh, John Andrews 1.

Q. Yes. And he was a Packaging Mechanic, was he not?
A. Yes.

-152-

i



Q. Now, you referred av/hile ago to this conversation you had with
i \a man named Coleman. Do you remember about what time that 

was, what date?

A. No, I can't remember, but it's been about 7:30 in the afternoon 

on the evening shift.

Q./ And how many years ago was this?

' 7
It's been about a year and a half or something like that.

li; • j
\And this Coleman conversation was with who; you say Mr. Ecksley?

• !j 
What Mr. Ecksley was that?

A. Charlie Ecksley.

ji. Q. And who is Charlie Ecksley? • l
A. ijHe is the plant Shift Superintendent.

Q. He was the plant Shift Superintendent?

A. Yes, and Mr. Grebenburg.

Q.
i!Grebenburg? ,

A.
il'Yes.

Q.
ji

And' what was he?
•

| A.

\\'

|jHe is a Shift Superintendent. They was on the same shift that 

afternoon. They come on back and let the Superintendent come 

back later at a certain time. i
Q.

M

|
And you mentioned a Joe Wilson in the course of your testimony. 

Joe Wilson, he's black, is he not? .
A. Yes. <
Q. (iNo further questions.

MR. FARRINGTON: I don't have anything further, Your Honor.

(P
S ’./'Sq ............. __.... .. i.

’ -153-