Permission to Protect Rights of Negro and other Minority Workers Asked by NAACP Legal Defense Fund
Press Release
March 31, 1953
Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Loose Pages. Permission to Protect Rights of Negro and other Minority Workers Asked by NAACP Legal Defense Fund, 1953. 2782efbf-bb92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8ea91948-49fd-4301-976d-a33afc2d618f/permission-to-protect-rights-of-negro-and-other-minority-workers-asked-by-naacp-legal-defense-fund. Accessed January 07, 2026.
Copied!
NAACP i DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
107 Vest 43 Street New York, N. Y.
ne Warshall, Director and Counsei)
FOR RELEASE: April 2, 1953
FER? ISSION TO PROTECT RIGHTS OF NEGRO AND OTHER
MINORITY WORKERS AS¥ED BY NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
March 31, 1953
NEW YORK, March 31 - The right of an employer to discrimi-
nate against a worker because of race, religion, national origin or
non-union membership, was raised today in a motion seeking permission
from the Supreme Court to file a brief as amicus curiae by attorneys
for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Thurgood
Marshall, counsel and director, and Jack Greenberg, assistant coun-
sel, as friends of the court, filed a motion in connection with a
case now awaiting argument before the high court.
The case in which the NAACP Legal Defense Fund seeks to
appear as amicus curiae involves an employer who is asking the
Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's ruling which declared it
an unfair lebor practice for him to deprive non-union workers of
benefits given to union members,
While racial discrimination does not appear to be involved
in the case, the attorneys pointed out, certain legal principles may
be determined by the high court's decision which might "immediately
affect the rights of Negroes and other minorities in their quest
for equal employrent opportunity."
The case developed out of a proceeding before tne National
Labor Relations Board which resulted in an order requiring the
Gaynor News Co., inc. and the Mail Deliverer's Union of New York to
desist from depriving a non-union worker, Shelton Loner, of in-
creased wages and vacation benefits given to union workers in the
plant. It was later established that other non-union workers in the
plant had been discriminated against by being denied these bene-.. *.-
fits. Gaynor News appealed ‘to the Court of «ppeals for the Second
Circuit and the NLRB's order was upheld, Attorneys for the employcr
have now taken the case to the Supreme Court.
Gaynor News admitted the discriminatory practices in the
lower court but defended its action on the ground that it was not
"encouraging" workers to join the union in violation of the act.
The case authority which it relied upon involved a closed shop con-
tract that gave non-union members in another plant the privilege of
electing their own representatives to ask for the same benefits
secured: by the union for its members. The court of appeals, howe
ever, refused to be persuaded by the decision in that case and
stated that a union representing a majority of the workers as ex-
clusive bargaining agent is required to represent all of the workers,
otherwise it would leave "the non-union members with no means of
equalizing the situation."
In its motion, NAACP Legal Defense attorneys claim that
"in many situations in which a labor union is the collective bar-
gaining arent, Negroes and other minority groups are excluded from
membership solely because of race, religion or national origin."
The attorneys argue that if the petitioner's legal theory
is upheld by the Supreme Court, Negroes and other minorities who
are barred from union membership will be deprived of the right to
file unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB and thus will de-
prive them of equal employment opportunity.
In filing the motion, NAACP Legal Defense lawyers assert
that in their belief the briefs to be filed with the Supreme Court
will not adequately present facts "bearing upon the status of Negro
and other minority group workers."
"The decision in this case . . . will vitally affect the
struggle of large segments of our population to secure job equality
and will be of nationel importance," the NAACP Legal Defense Fund
attorneys pointed out.
The filing of the motion was made necessary because
attorneys for the Gaynor News Co. had refused the NAACP Legal De-
fense and Educational Fund permission to file a brief in connection
with the case. If the motion is granted, then Legal Defense will
be able to file a brief amicus curiae.
28008