Brinkley v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company Complaint

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WILMINGTON DIVISION 

ANNIE M. BRINKLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. __ 

THE GREAT ATLANTIC AND PACIFIC 
TEA COMPANY, INC,, a Maryland 
Corporation, 

Defendant. 

COMPLAINT 

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §1343. This is a suit in equity authorized and insti- 

tuted raat to Title VII of the Act known as "The Civil 

Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C, 

§1983. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to secure 

protection of and to redress deprivation of rights secured by 

(a) Title VII of the Act known as "The Civil Rights Act of 

1964," 42 U.S.C. §§2000e, providing for injunctive and other 

relief against racial discrimination in employment and (b) 42 

U.S.C. §1981, providing for the equal rights of citizens and 

all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States. 

Il 

Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf anc on 



behalf of others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a)(3) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There are common 

of law and fact affecting the rights of other Negroes 

seeking eae} enploynent opportunity without discrimination on 

the ground es race or color who are so numerous as to make it 

impracticable to bring them all before this Court. A common 

relief is sought. The interests of said class are adequately 

represented by plaintiff. 

IIl ¥ 

This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent 

injunction restraining defendant from maintaining a policy, 

practice, custom and usage of withholding, denying attempting 

to withhold or deny, and depriving or attempting to deprive, 

and otherwise interfering, with the rights of plagnehts and 

others similarly situated to equal employment opportunity at 

markets and/or stores owned and operated by The Great Atlantic 

and Pacific Tea Company, Incorporated, without discrimination 

on the ground of race or color. 

Iv 

Plaintiff Annie M, Brinkley is a Negro citizen of the 

United States and the State of North Carolina residing in the 

City of Wilmington, North Carolina. ¢ 

Vv 

Defendant, The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 

Inc., is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the 

State of Maryland, doing business in the State of North Carolina 

and the City of Wilmington. Defendant operates and maintains 

about five markets and/or stores in the City of Wilmington, 

North Carolina and a large number of such markets and/or stores 

throughout the remainder of the State of North Carolina. 



: VI 

Defendant is an employer engaged in an industry which 

affects interstate commerce and defendant employs more than 

one hundred employees. 

: VII 

A, On July 20, 1965, plaintiff Annie M, Brinkley applied 

for employment as a cashier at two food markets and/or stores 

Operated by defendant, The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 

Inc., in Wilmington, North Carolina. At the store located on 

South 17th Street in Wilmington, she was told that the manager 

was out and could not be located. At the store located on North 

3rd Street in Wilmington, the manager told plaintiff that there 

were no jobs available and that he would not accept her applica- 

tion for employment at a later date. The statement of the manager 

and his failure to accept plaintiff's application were intended 

to deny and had the effect of denying her employment because of 

her race and color. 

B, Neither of the markets and/or stores at which plaintiff 

sought employment employs Negroes as cashiers, or said mar- 

kets and/or stores, if they employ Negroes as cashiers, do so on 

a token basis only. Negroes other than plaintiff have sought 

employment as cashiers at markets and/or stores operated by 

defendant in Wilmington, North Carolina and have been refused 

employment on the basis of race. It is alleged that none of the 

five food markets and/or stores owned and operated by defendant 

in the City of Wilmington, nor any of the food markets and/or 

stores owned and operated by defendant in the surrounding area 

employ Negroes as cashiers or in any staff positions. If Negroes 

are employed as cashiers or in staff positions at said markets 

and/or stores, such employment is on a token basis only. 

C, Plaintiff was refused employment and the opportunity of 

making application for future employment on the basis of her race 

and color pursuant to defendant's long standing and well-known 

practice, custom, and usage of refusing to hire or accept future 

applications from Negroes for employment as cashiers in the City 

of Wilmington and surrounding area on the basis of race and color. 

Pursuant to this policy, practice, custom,and usage, Negroes 

other than plaintiff have also been denied employment by defendant, 

on the basis of race and color. 

-3- 



VIII 

Plaintiff is an experienced cashier who. was fully qualified 

for the employment she sought. Plaintiff was denied employment 

because of her race and color in violation of Title VII of the 

Act known as "The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. §§2000e 

et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §1981. 

Ix 

Neither the State of North Carolina nor the City of 

Wilmington has a law prohibiting the unlawful practices alleged 

herein. July 29, 1965, plaintiff filed a complaint with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging denial by 

defendant of her rights under Title VII of "The Civil Rights 

Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq. September 29, 1965, 

the Commission found reasonable cause to believe that a viola- 

tion of the Act had occurred by defendant. Subsequently, the 

Commission notified plaintiff that defendant's compliance with 

Title VII had not been accomplished within the maximum period 

allowed to the Commission by Title VII of "The Civil Rights Act 

of 1964," 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq., and that plaintiff is 

entitled to maintain a civil action for relief in a United 

States District Court. 

X 

Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law 

to redress the wrongs alleged, and this suit for a preliminary 

and permanent injunction is her only means of securing adequate 

relief. Plaintiff and the class she represents are now suf- 

fering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from 

defendant's policy, practice, custom, and usage as set forth 

herein. 

WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays this Court advance 

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

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

and upon such hearing to: 



1. Grant plaintiff and the class she represents a 

preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendant. The 

Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Incorporated, its agents 

cick ieeora, employees, attorneys, and those acting in concert 

with them and at their direction from continuing or maintaining 

the policy, practice, custom and usage of denying, abridging, 

withholding, conditioning, limiting or otherwise interfering 

with the right of plaintiff to employment as a cashier at 

defendant's markets and/or stores in Wilmington, North Carolina 

on the basis of race and color. 

2. Grant plaintiff and the class she represents a pre- 

liminary and permanent injunction enjoining defendant, the Great 

Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Incorporated, 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 denying, abridging, 

withholding, conditioning, limiting or otherwise interfering 

with the rights of plaintiff and others similarly situated to 

enjoy equal employment opportunity as secured by Title VII of 

the Act known as “The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. 

§§2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C, §1981 without discrimination on 
nae 

the basis of race or color, including but not limited to the 

Maintenance of any policy, practice, custom, or usage of 

refusing to employ Negro cashiers and staff personnel or 

limiting the number of same in the State of North Carolina on 

the basis of race and color. 

3. Grant plaintiff, Annie M, Brinkley, back pay from the 

time of defendant's wrongful denial of employment to the present. 

4. Allow plaintiff her costs herein, including reasonable 

attorney's fees and such other additional relief as may appear 

to the Court to be equitable and just. 

Respectfully submitted, 

CONRAD O. PEARSON 
2034 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina 

ao é 



J. LeVONNE CHAMBERS 
~ 405% East Trade Street 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

: ed LISBON BERRY 
pp eal 511% North Fourth Street 

Wilmington, North Carolina 

JACK GREENBERG 
LEROY D. CLARK 
MICHAEL MELTSNER 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

va.