English v. Lawrence Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

    I n  th e

Ihtprmr (tart of %  Initrii #tatro
O ctober T er m , 1974 

No..........

W illiam  E n g lish , J r .,

v.
Petitioner,

H on , A lexander  A . L aw ren ce , United States District 
Judge for the Southern District of Georgia; S eaboard 
C oast L in e  R ailroad C o m pan y  ; B rotherhood  op R a il ­
w a y , A ir lin e  and S t eam sh ip  C lerk s , F reight  H an ­
dlers, E xpress and  S tation  E m ployees .

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

J ack  G reenberg 
J am es  M . N abrit , III 
M orris J. B aller 

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

F letch er  F arrington

Hill, Jones & Farrington 
208 East 34th Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401 

Attorneys for Petitioner

May 1975.



I N D E X

Opinion Below .............................   1

Jurisdiction ..............................      1

Question Presented .............................. ............................. 2

Statutory Provisions Involved ..............................   2

Statement of the Case ...................... ...............................  3

R easons eob G ban tin g  th e  W bit  :

The Court of Appeals Has So Far Sanctioned a 
Departure from the Accepted and Usual Course 
of Judicial Proceedings as to Call for an Exer­
cise of This Court’s Power of Supervision........ 11

C onclusion  ...........................       15

A ppendix  :

Judgment of Court of Appeals, February 27, 1975 la

District Court Docket Entries ...............................  2a
Letter of Court of Appeals Clerk to District 
Judge, January 27, 1975 ........................................... 4a

Court of Appeals Docket Entries .......................... 6a
Plaintiff’s Letter to District Judge, November 9,
1973 .......       8a
Plaintiff’s Letter to District Judge, February 6,
1974 ..............................................................................................  11a

page



11

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Decision filed in 
District Court, April 11, 1974 ....... ................. ..... . 13a
Excerpt from Plaintiff’s Pleading filed May 16,
1974 ............................................................................. 16a

Plaintiff’s Letter to Chief Judge Brown, August 
22, 1974 ..................................................................   18a

Letter of Chief Judge Brown to Plaintiff’s Coun­
sel, September 11, 1974 .........      21a
Orders of District Court in English v. Seaboard 
Coast Line Railroad Co., et al.:

Order of January 28, 1972 ................... ......... . 22a

Order of October 18, 1972 .................. ........ ........  24a
Order of November 16, 1973, adopting Memo­

randum Agreement of January 12, 1973 ..... 27a
Order of January 31, 1974 ..................................  30a

Order of District Court in Hayes v. Seaboard Coast 
Line Co., S.D. Ga., Savannah Div., No. 2371 (Mai’ch 
22, 1974) ..................................................................   35a

T able op A u th o bitibs

Cases:

Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morrie, 132 P. 945 (8th 
Cir. 1904) ..................................    14

Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74 (1970) ...... 11

English v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., et al.,
465 F.2d 43 (5th Cir. 1972) .........................................  14

Ex parte Bradstreet, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 634 (1833) ..... 14

page



Ill

Ex parte Kawato, 317 TJ.S. 69 (1942) .......................... 14
Ex parte Newman, 81 TJ.S. (14 Wall.) 152 (1872) ..... 13
Ex parte Pennsylvania Co., 137 TJ.S. 451 (1890) ....... 14

Hall v. West, 335 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1964) ..................13,14

In re Watts, 214 F. 80 (2nd Cir. 1914) .............. .... ....... 14

Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Comstock, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.)
258 (1873) ...................................................    13

McClellan v. Carland, 217 TJ.S. 268 (1910) ..................  14

New York Life & Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 33 U.S. (8 
Pet.) 291 (1833) ..................................................    14

Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cushman, 292 F. 930 (9th 
Cir. 1923) .....................................................................  14

Re Grossmayer, 177 U.S. 48 (1900) ..................    14

Schendel v. McGee, 300 F. 273 (8th Cir. 1924) ..........  14
Schwab v. Coleman, 145 F.2d 672 (4th Cir. 1944) ..... 14
Steccone v. Morse-Starrett Products Co., 191 F.2d 197 

(9th Cir. 1951) ...............     14

Statutes:

28 U.S.C. § 332 ................................................................  12
28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ............................................ ............. 2

All WTrits Act, 28 U.<S.C. § 1651(a) [as amended May 
24, 1949, c. 139, § 90, 63 Stat. 102] ......... ...................  3

42 U.S.C. § 1981

page

3



1Y

Title VII, Civil Eights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e 
et seq............................................. ................. ........... . 3

Civil Eights Act of 1964, § 706(f) (5), as amended, 42 
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (5) [as added March 24, 1972,
P.L. 92-26, Title VII, 86 Stat. 107] ..........................2,12

Eailway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §<§ 151 et seq. ......... .........  3

Other Authorities:

Hearing of H.E. 5999, before House Committee on the 
Judiciary, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. ......... ......................  11

“Management Statistics for United States Courts, 
1974,” Administrative Office of the United States 
Courts  ............................................................ ............... 9

page



I n  th e

&upr?tn? (Emxxt nl tin IntM  States
O ctober T er m , 1974 

No.............

W illiam  E n g lish , Jr.,

v.
Petitioner,

H on . A lexander  A . L aw ren ce , United States District 
Judge for the Southern District of Georgia; S eaboard 
C oast L in e  R ailroad C o m p a n y ; B rotherhood  oe R ail ­
w a y , A irlin e  and  S team sh ip  Clerk s , F reight  H an­
dlers, E xpress and  S tation  E mployees .

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

The petitioner, William English, Jr., respectfully prays 
that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 
entered in this proceeding on February 27, 1975.

Opinion Below

The order of the Court of Appeals, not yet reported, 
appears in the appendix hereto; no opinion was rendered 
in either court below.

Jurisdiction

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit was entered on February 27, 1975 (App. la), and



2

this petition for certiorari is filed within 90 days of that
date. This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C.
§1254(1).

Question Presented

Whether the court below erred by denying mandamus to 
require that a district judge decide a sis year old employ­
ment discrimination case which he has kept under advise­
ment for more than two years following trial where the 
district judge:

1. Has not indicated when, or whether, the case will ever 
be decided;

2. Has not given any reason for refusing to decide the 
case and has refused to respond to requests and 
motions for a decision;

3. Has failed to comply with the Fifth Circuit’s direc­
tion that the district judge answer plaintiff’s man­
damus petition;

4. Has a history of never promptly deciding Title VII 
cases submitted for his decision.

Statutory Provisions Involved

1. This case involves section 706(f)(5) of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (5) 
[as added March 24, 1972, P.L. 92-26, Title VII, 86 Stat. 
107], which provides:

It shall be the duty of the judge designated pursuant 
to this subsection to assign the case for hearing at the 
earliest practicable date and to cause the case to be in



3

every way expedited. If such judge has not scheduled 
the case for trial within one hundred and twenty days 
after issue has been joined, that judge may appoint 
a master pursuant to rule 53 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure.

2. The case also involves the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 
§ 1651(a) [as amended May 24, 1949, c. 139, §90, 63 Stat. 
102] which provides:

(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established 
by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or 
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions 
and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

Statement of the Case

This is a class action in which the plaintiff William 
English sued his employer and labor union alleging racial 
discrimination against black workers in violation of federal 
civil rights laws. The suit was filed in the District Court 
for the Southern District of Georgia, November 18, 1969, 
and assigned to the Honorable Alexander A. Lawrence, 
United States District Judge, sitting in the Way cross 
Division. The complaint, as amended, alleged violations of 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C1. §§ 2000e 
et seq., of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and of the duty of fair repre­
sentation under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151, 
et seq., by the defendants Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 
Company (Seaboard) and the Brotherhood of Railway, 
Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express 
and Station Employees, and Locals Nos. 5 and 186 thereof 
(BRAG).

After a three year period of litigation involving various 
motions and discovery matters (see Docket infra, p. 2a),



4

including an interlocutory appeal not dealing with the 
merits,1 and a preliminary injunction requiring the merger 
of racially segregated locals of BRAG,1 2 the court entered a 
pre-trial order dated October 24, 1972 (p. 24a, infra), 
setting the case for trial in two stages, with the first stage 
to commence on January 8, 1973, to “deal solely with the 
question of discrimination vel non.”  3 * The trial commenced 
on January 8 and continued on January 9, 10, 11, 15 and 16, 
1973 (p. 2a, infra). Within a few weeks after trial the 
parties filed briefs, including proposed findings and con­
clusions, with the final reply brief being submitted March 5, 
1973 (ibid.). From that time until now (more than two 
years later) the district court has not decided the issue sub­
mitted, the question of “discrimination vel non,”  or stated 
on the record any reason why the case has not been decided, 
or when it will be decided.

During these two years petitioner has made many efforts 
to get the case decided. First, petitioner’s counsel wrote 
letters to the district judge asking that the case be dis­

1 In the interlocutory appeal the Fifth Circuit held that it was 
not error for the trial court to require that plaintiff join as de­
fendants one or more white employees of Seaboard. English v. 
Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co., et al., 465 F,2d 43 (5th Cir. 
1972). In the opinion rendered on August 7, 1972, the Fifth 
Circuit noted the slow progress of the case and urged that it be 
expedited :

“We note in conclusion that this case is now over two years 
old and it is still in the pleading stage. Without attempting 
to designate responsibility for this delay, we urge all con­
cerned to proceed in good faith to bring this litigation to a 
close.” - (465 F.2d at 48)

2 The order is reprinted in 4 CCH EPD ([ 7645; appendix infra, 
p. 22a.

3 The order also said “All questions of remedy, injunction, back 
pay, and attorneys fees shall be reserved for hearing at a later
date, after adequate time for preparation by all parties.” See 
Appendix pp. 25a-26a, infra; 5 CCH EPD ([8018.



5

posed of, on November 9, 1973 (p. 8a, infra), and again on 
February 6, 1974 (p. 11a, infra). Receiving no answer to 
the letters, petitioner then filed a motion on April 11, 1974, 
asking that the case be decided (p. 13a, infra). When the 
court did not act on the motion, petitioner in May 1974 
filed further briefs calling the court’s attention to a number 
of Fifth Circuit cases decided in the year since trial, and 
again filed a pleading requesting that the court enter a 
decision (p. 16a, infra). By August 1974, a year and a half 
had elapsed since the case was first submitted, and peti­
tioner had received no response from the court to any of 
these requests for a decision. On August 22, 1974, peti­
tioner’s counsel wrote to the Chief Judge of the Fifth 
Circuit asking for assistance in the matter (p. 18a, infra). 
On September 11, 1974, Chief Judge Brown replied men­
tioning the district judge’s “tremendous caseload” and 
concluding that “he will get this case out just as soon as 
he can and understands fully the need for a decision at 
the earliest possible time” (p. 21a, infra). Another four 
months elapsed and no decision was entered. Petitioner 
then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Fifth 
Circuit on January 23, 1975. Four days later, the clerk 
wrote to Judge Lawrence, advising that “The Court has 
directed me to request that you file a response to the peti­
tion for writ of mandamus filed herein within 21 days.” 4 
Judge Lawrence filed no response.* 6 Responses opposing 
mandamus were filed by Seaboard and BRAC. No oral 
argument was held. On February 27, 1975, the court of 
appeals denied the petition for mandamus without opinion. 
At the time of the filing of this petition (May 1975) there

4 See Appendix p. 4a, infra.

6 A copy of the court of appeals docket is in the Appendix at 
p. 6a. ̂ The court of appeals clerk’s office also orally advised peti­
tioner’s counsel that no response was received from Judge Law­
rence.



6

has still been no decision. If no decision has been made by 
the time this petition is submitted to this Court’s con­
ference in October 1975, the district judge will have failed 
and refused to decide the case for more than two and a half 
years.

In opposing mandamus the defendants argued that the 
district court did sign two injunctive orders since the trial. 
Actually both orders were submitted to the district judge 
by agreement of all parties, and these orders did not con­
tain any decision of the merits of the case, i.e., the “ques­
tion of discrimination vel non.” A brief explanation is 
necessary to understand the meaning of these orders. At 
trial, plaintiff proved a blatant pattern of racial segrega­
tion and exclusion in jobs in Seaboard’s Waycross Division 
which conformed to the factual description given earlier 
in the Fifth Circuit’s opinion on the interlocutory appeal:

At the time the suit was brought black employees 
were members of one local and the white employees of 
the other. Since that time the two locals have merged 
by order of the district court. . . .

English and the members of his class are black em­
ployees of Seaboard in Waycross, Georgia; all em­
ployees and job classifications involved are within the 
BRAG craft unit for collective bargaining purposes. 
Within the craft unit there are two groups, Group 1 
and Group 2, which English describes as “ roughly 
corresponding to clerk’s and laborer’s jobs,” respec­
tively. Group 1 jobs pay better and are more pres­
tigious than Group 2 jobs. The majority of whites 
hold Group 1 jobs, but there are no blacks in this group 
category.

Under the collective bargaining agreement between 
BRAG and Seaboard, Group 1 seniority and Group 2 
seniority are kept separate. Group 2 seniority is not



7

transferable to Group 1 in the event of transfer or 
promotion. In view of the fact that all blacks are in 
Group 2 no blacks have any usable seniority rights for 
Group 1 jobs. . . . (465 F.2d at 45)

Plaintiff proved that up to ten days prior to trial all 90 
jobs in Group 1 were held by white workers, while all blacks 
were employed in labor type jobs in Group 2 which em­
ployed 37 white and 74 black workers. No black person 
had been hired for a Group 1 job within the memory of any 
witness until one black person was hired on the eve of 
trial. The plaintiff, William English, a well-qualified man 
with a high school diploma and a year of college, was 
repeatedly denied Group 1 clerical work and confined to 
Group 2 laborer’s work for 22 years while dozens of less 
qualified whites were hired and promoted to Group 1. Black 
workers in Group 2 earned significantly less than whites in 
Group 1. While the trial was in progress and after plaintiff 
had presented his case, Seaboard and BRAG negotiated 
and signed a Memorandum Agreement dated January 12, 
1973, which amended the collective bargaining agreement 
to eliminate references to groups 1 and 2 and merge the 
separate seniority lists into a single list. This merger was 
an important element of the relief sought by plaintiff in 
the case. In the subsequent briefs filed after trial, the com­
pany and union contended that this seniority reform, which 
was made effective March 1, 1973, eliminated the need for 
any injunction in this case.

On November 16,1973, Judge Lawrence entered an order, 
presented by agreement of the parties providing that the 
January 12, 1973, memorandum of agreement between Sea­
board and BRAC was “adopted by this Court and made a 
part of this order” (p. 27a, infra). The order then recites 
that the parties are enjoined from “engaging in any em­
ployment practice or course of conduct which interferes



8

with or is contrary to this Order.” Although it is not 
reflected on the face of the order, the November 18 order 
was signed by agreement of all parties to the case. There 
were no findings of fact or conclusions of law. On January 
31, 1974, again by agreement of all parties to the case, 
the court approved an amendment to the Memorandum 
Agreement between the company and union (p. 30a, infra). 
Again there were no findings of fact, or conclusions of law 
filed.

In neither of these orders entered by Judge Lawrence 
which “ adopt” the action taken by the defendants during 
the trial changing the seniority system, has the court ruled 
on the issue presented at trial and defined by pre-trial 
order, the question of “discrimination vel non.” Although 
they agreed to the order of November 16, 1973 (and the 
January 31, 1974, amendment), the defendants have not 
admitted, and the court has not found, racial discrimination 
as alleged by plaintiff. Indeed, in the last pleading filed in 
the district court May 30, 1974, Seaboard still contended 
that “No decision of any court alters SCL’s previously 
announced position that no class discrimination has been 
demonstrated.”

The court has not disposed of the remedial questions 
which were postponed until a “ second stage” hearing, which 
would include the proper scope of final injunctive relief in 
the case pertaining to racial discrimination in general, and 
to discrimination in hiring, seniority, segregated local union 
chapters, reporting of the operation of the newly changed 
seniority system, back pay, counsel fees and like matters.

The official published statistics on the workload of the 
Southern District of Georgia (including both judges) indi­
cate that despite the busy workload of the court during 1973 
and 1974 the median time from filing to disposition of civil



9

cases was 8 months and that only a handful of cases (10 
in 1973 and 17 in 1974) had been pending more than three 
years.6 The time for disposition was slightly less than the 
national average for all district courts, and the percentage 
of cases over three years old in the Southern District (2.7% 
in 1973 and 3.6% in 1974) was also less than the national 
average (about 7% ).7 Thus, overall workload statistics for 
the Southern District do not indicate that the court was 
unable to dispose of the cases filed. The number of civil 
filings per judge was lower in 1973 and 1974 ( 220 and 297 
eases) than it was in 1969 (303 civil filings per judge).8

The mandamus petition alleged (and the allegation stands 
uncontradicted) that there were no complicated issues in 
this case which might explain the delay and that Judge 
Lawrence had never promptly decided any of the Title VII 
cases in which he has conducted trials. We quote the state­
ment made on page 13 of the mandamus petition, note 8:

Judge Lawrence’s failure to enter a final judgment 
to Petitioner’s case assumes significance when viewed 
against the background of his management of the other 
Title VII cases before him. The final day of trial in 
Hart v. Buckeye Industries, Civil Action No. 702 (S.D. 
Ga., Dublin Div.), was January 22, 1969. Some thirty- 
three (33) months later, November 8, 1971, the plain tiff 
in that case had to file a “Motion for Entry of Judg­
ment.” Subsequently, the plaintiff filed, but later with­
drew, a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” in the Fifth 
Circuit. Judge Lawrence never entered a judgment in 
that case and it was finally disposed of by settlement

6 “Management Statistics for United States Courts, 1974,” Ad­
ministrative Office of the United States Courts, pp. 52, 120.

1 Id. at 52, 100.
8 Id. at 52.



10

on November 27, 1973, after it had been pending before 
the district court, fully ripe for a decision, for almost 
five (5) years. The Respondent entered his decision 
in East v. Romine, Inc., Civil Action No. 2815 (S.D. 
Ga., Savannah Div.), an individual claim under Title 
VII, on April 30, 1974, some eighteen (18) months 
after the final date of trial (August 1, 1972), and only 
after the plaintiff in the case filed a “Motion for Entry 
of Judgment” on March 11, 1974. Miller v. Continental 
Can Co., Civil Action No. 2803 (S.D. Ga., Savannah 
Div.), a class action, was tried in August-September, 
1973, but, to date, some fifteen (15) months after trial, 
Judge Lawrence has not entered a judgment.

It is to be emphasized that the above, along with 
Petitioner’s case, are the only Title VII trials com­
pleted by Judge Lawrence. The post-trial histories of 
these cases suggest a pattern of delayed decision­
making in employment discrimination cases.



11

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The Court of Appeals Has So Far Sanctioned a De­
parture from the Accepted and Usual Course of Judi­
cial Proceedings as to Call for an Exercise of This 
Court’s Power of Supervision.

This is an extreme and unusual situation where a dis­
trict judge has refused to decide a fully tried and sub­
mitted case for more than two years and refuses to explain 
the delay or give any indication when the decision will 
be made. Indeed, the case is cut virtually in the pattern 
of the archetypical extreme case which was thought by 
the late Judge John Parker to justify both mandamus 
and enactment of a law giving an administrative sanc­
tion in the judicial council. Judge Parker spoke of a hypo­
thetical “Judge Jones” :

If Judge Jones decides a case contrary to the views 
of the majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals, we 
can tell him so and reverse him. But if he holds a 
case under advisement for 2 years, instead of decid­
ing it promptly, there is nothing that we are author­
ized by the law to do about it in the absence of an 
application for mandamus. Now, this [bill] author­
izes us to do something about it; and I agree with 
you that something ought to be done about it.9

Judge Parker’s remarks, which are reprinted as quoted 
approvingly by Mr. Justice Harlan in the Chandler case,10 
were made during Congressional testimony in 1939 in sup­

9 Hearing on H.R. 5999, before the House Committee on the 
Judiciary, 76th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 21.

10 Chandler v. Judicial Council, 398 U.S. 74, 101 (1970), con­
curring opinion of Mr. Justice Harla.n.



12

port of the proposal to create the judicial councils, which 
eventually became 28 U.S.C. § 332.

Petitioner has not been able to achieve results by either 
of the approaches mentioned. His attempt to obtain ad­
ministrative help through a letter to the Chief Judge of 
the Circuit has not produced any result. His mandamus 
petition was denied without opinion. The court of appeals 
denied relief notwithstanding the district judge’s failure 
to offer any reply to the petition as requested by the 
appellate court. Moreover, petitioner faces truly indefi­
nite delay. The precedent which confronts petitioner is 
the failure of the same judge to decide a similar case 
for five years, until the parties finally ended the case by 
settlement. (See Statement supra at 9). Where the dis­
trict judge offers no explanation for the failure to decide 
the case, petitioner must assume that the district judge 
will by failing to act deny relief and at the same time 
indefinitely avoid the possibility of appellate review of 
the denial of relief.

The delay is all the more egregious because it takes 
place in a class action intended to vindicate the rights of 
absent parties, and because it occurs in a type of case 
which the Congress has expressly ordered to be expedited. 
(42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f) (5)) Surely the conduct of this case 
has not been in accordance with the statutory command 
that the case “be in every way expedited.” Whatever rea­
son may eventually be forthcoming to justify the court’s 
failure to decide the case, and we repeat that none have 
been offered thus far, the conduct of this case has been 
a far cry from that envisioned by Section 2000e-5(f) (5).

Moreover, the case assumes added importance when 
viewed in the context of the district judge’s refusal to 
decide similar employment discrimination cases for ex­
tended periods of time. It suggests a substantial nullifi­



13

cation of Title VII in the Southern District of Georgia 
which destroys the credibility of the federal fair employ­
ment laws as a deterrent to discrimination in that juris­
diction. If a district court announced that it would refuse 
to render decisions in Title VII cases notwithstanding the 
Act of Congress conferring jurisdiction over such matters, 
no one would suppose that such a substantial thwarting 
of the Congressional policy would be permitted to stand. 
Indeed, a decade ago when another district judge refused 
to enforce the constitutional prohibition against racial 
segregation in public education, the Fifth Circuit not only 
issued a mandamus requiring decision, but wrote the in­
junction the district court was to issue. Hall v. West, 335 
F.2d 481 (5th Cir, 1964). But unless this case is reviewed, 
now or later, Title VII will have been substantially nulli­
fied in this district.

Decisions of this Court from the 19th Century have 
made it plain that mandamus is appropriate where a court 
wrongfully refuses to decide a case. In Knickerbocker 
Ins. Co. v. Com-stock, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 258, 270 (1873), 
the Court said:

Repeated decisions of this court have established 
the rule that this court has power to issue a man­
damus, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, 
and that the writ will lie in a proper case to direct 
a subordinate Federal Court to decide a pending 
cause. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 175; Kendall 
v. U.S., 12 Pet. 622.

Similarly, in Ex Parte Newman, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 152, 
165 (1872), the Court said:

Applications for a mandamus to a subordinate 
court are warranted by the principles and usages 
of law in cases where the subordinate court, having



14

jurisdiction of a case, refuses to hear and decide the 
controversy, or where such a court, having heard the 
cause, refuses to render judgment or enter a decree 
in the case; . . .

See also, McClellan v. Garland, 217 U.S. 268, 280 (1910); 
Ex Parte Bradstreet, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 634 (1833); Re 
Grossmayer, 177 U.S. 48 (1900); New York Life & Fire 
Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 291 (1833); Ex Parte 
Pennsylvania Co., 137 U.S. 451 (1890); Ex Parte Kawato, 
317 U.S. 69 (1942); Schwab v. Coleman, 145 F.2d 672 (4th 
Cir. 1944); Steccone v. Morse-Starrett Products Co., 191 
F.2d 197, 199 (9th Cir. 1951); Schendel v. McGee, 300 F. 
273 (8th Cir. 1924); Barker Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Morris, 
132 F. 945 (8th Cir. 1904) ; In Re Watts, 214 F. 80 (2nd 
Cir. 1914); Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Cushman, 292 F. 930 
(9th Cir. 1923); Hall v. West, 335 F.2d 481 (5th Cir. 1964).

In 1972, the Fifth Circuit noted the slow progress of 
this case and urged that all parties proceed “in good faith 
to bring this litigation to a close.” English v. Seaboard 
Coastline Railroad Co., 465 F.2d 43, 48 (5th Cir. 1972). 
That gentle admonition was insufficient. For reasons we 
cannot know, the court of appeals held back from taking 
the sterner step of issuing a mandamus. Unless this Court 
exercises its power of supervision and issues the writ, 
petitioner and the members of his class will simply be 
deprived of an adjudication of their claims under the 
Civil Eights Act. When this case is presented to the Court 
for decision next October, it will be nearly 7 years old 
and, if no decision has been rendered by that time, it will 
have been kept under advisement for 33 months since the 
conclusion of the trial. This extraordinary set of circum­
stances calls for use of the extraordinary writ of man­
damus.



15

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, it is respectfully submitted that 
the petition for certiorari should be granted to review the 
judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack  Greenberg

J am es M. N abrit , III
M orris J. B aller 

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

F letch er  F arrington

Hill, Jones & Farrington 
208 East 34th Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

Attorneys for Petitioner

May 1975.



A P P E N D I X



Judgment of Court of Appeals, 
February 27 , 1975

I k  th e

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
F oe th e  F if t h  C iechit

No. 75-1209

In re:

W illiam  E n g lish , Jr.,

Petitioner.

Ok P etitio k  foe W eit  of M andam us  

B e f o r e :

Gewtn, G oldberg and Dyer,

Circuit Judges.
By the Court:

It Is O rdered that the petition for writ of mandamus is 
D enied .

la



2a

District Court Docket Entries

(See Opposite) E3P



ST
A

T
IS

T
IC

A
L

 R
E

C
O

R
D

o
ir%

ow03 U\

~  °
0 Aw f
1 w 5 o•5 W «

<\f O  I-". CM LT\
CO-cr

H Oy
S q

GN

00H
Oo

f-1CD
o

;§
cjs
m
ra
*-s

Co CluO <8as
is- Cl
VlA
a«s u •*-i a

O j -G

James L. Highsaw, Esq. 
Highsaw & Mahoney 
Suite 506
1015-18th Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036

Stanley M. Karsman, Esq. 
Ill West Congress St. 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

Edward A. Charron, Esq.
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 
Law Department 
500 Water Street 
Jacksonville, Florida 32202

B arnard  M. P er  titan 
Smith and F o r t r a n  

P . 0 .  Box 9565 
Savannah,  Ga. -314C

Houlihan,
Malcolm Maclean, Esq.
Connerat, Dunn, Hunter,
Maclean & Exley, P.C. 

Savannah Dank & Trust Building 
P.0. Box S848 
Savannah, Georgia 31402

Fletcher Farrington, Esq.
208 East 34th St.
Savannah, Georgia 31401

"H&rris J. Bailer, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10016________



DATE . ■- PROCEEDINGS 3udgn

: 11-18»69 Filina Original Complaint. Copies prepared and summons.-.l-SSutedL; .oiai led to.._
U. S. Marshal for service. ...........- .... .

J, S. C Card prepared, ...
1 12-15-69 Filina Marshal's Return on Services Defendants served:through their representati •/es
t £■ in Waycros-s, Georgia, on December 8, 1969.
i 12-2^-69 i Filirrq Defendant's Artswer» with certificate of service thereon. (Seaboard Coast 1ire)

12-24-69 filing Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for More Definite Statement.(Seaboard Ccast
1~ 8-70 Filing and entering Order allowing Extension of lime for filing Defensive Pleadings

to include the 28th day of January, 1970. !'___
1 1 -l*+-70 Filing Interrogatories of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company to plaintiff, wit 1

1 certificate of service thereon.
1---r-26-70j Filina Answer of Defendants to complaint, with certificate of service thereon

3-23-70 Filinq Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroa d
s Company, with certificate of service thereon.
I ii-23-70 Filinq Defendant's Amendment to Answer, with Order allowing same attached therenri.

and Certificate, of Service attached thereto.
9™ 10“ 7 0 Filing defendants' Affidavit in Support of Motions to Dismiss, with certificate

of service thereon.
SFTCF71T Hearing held this date on Defendant Seaboard Coastline's Motion to Dismiss, to

. Strike and for More Definite Statement. Motions argued by counsel for parties.
Court took under advisement. Plaintiff to file Brief in 30 days.

! 1012-70 Filing Supplemental Motions to Dismiss by Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad\ ' " 
1 Company, with certificate of service thereon.
| ron^Tol Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories propounded by defendant Seaboard Coast

Line Railroad Company.filed.
* 11-27.-70 Filing Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Fiie Amended Compiaint, with certificate
: of service thereon.
1 ! 1~ 27-70 Filinq Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law, with certificate of service thereon.

1 N> 1 O Fiiinq Plaintiff's First Amended Compiaint, with certificate of service thereon.

N> K
i 8 O Filinq Defendant Seaboard's Second Amendment to Answer, with certificate of servi ce.

12- 2-70 Filing Defendant Seaboard's Motion to Dismiss, with certificate of service.
Tl-~ 3-70 Filing Defendant Seaboard's Objections to Plaintiff's First Amendment, with

j certificate of service thereon.
12-29“/U Filinq Defendant Seaboard's Request for Admissions of Facts, with Certificate of' Service thereon.
1- 4-71 Filing Plaintiff's Reply to Objections of Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad

i Company to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.
F T F 7T Filing Answer of Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company to Interrogators s

served by Plaintiff, with certificate of service thereon.
1-12-71 Filing Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company's Second Interrogatories,

wTth~~Cer t 1 fTcate o f ~Se t v f C e Tf'fereoir:
'~OTP-7T 

2- 3-71
* ' n5 .Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company's First M o t i o n  for ^rnn^ry

Judgment, with Certificate of Service thereon.
filing Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company's
Request for Admissions of Facts, with certificate of service thereon.

2-13-71 Filing Memorandum of’TJeTencfan ts Brotherhood of Railway arid Airline Cterk‘5~'~arrd
BRAC Locals Nos. 5 and 1586 supporting Objections to Proposed Amendment of Compl, i n t.
Arf.Lth-_r.prfifir.ate of service .thereoa, r

2-12-7! Filinq Answer of Defendants Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks an? BRAC
Locals Nos. 5 and I586 Objectinq to Amendment of Complaint, with certificate of
service thereon.

2-12-71 Filinq Answer of Defendants Locals Nos. 5 and: 1586 of Brotherhood Railway, Steam: h T p
Clerks, Freight Handlers, Airline Station Employees, Waycross, Georgia, arid the
International Brotherhood o f Railway, Steamship Clerks’, f re i gift Handler s , Aiftim

» —.. and Station Employees to First Amended Complaint, with certificate of service th =rei
<

. ; i - Cj -i- ? > 5



e t  a i

D. C. 110 Kev. Clvl! D ocket Continuation

DATE
197!

PROCEEDINGS P-Judf
Feb. 16 F i 1 ing Detendan t1 s No 11 ce to i a ke depos i TTonTo'r Janies t. WotTe ' u p o O T a T

examination at his home at 226 Ho Imes Avenue, Clarendon HTFt, 1 It,, ICTiOO
—A. M. orTThe 25 th day of Ha rch. T971., with Notice to PTaTnrt ft hr Aftcrmey- —

and certificate of service.
Feb „ 16 Filinq Defendant,' Brotherhood of' Railway and A i r 1 i ne C1 erks to Dismiss the

First Amended Complaint or in the alternative qrant the Defendant Summary JudgmerTt,
with memorandum of points and author i t i es in support of motion to dismiss and
affidavit of Kenneth D, Shaw, Vice President of BRAG,, with certificate of
service. Copy delivered to the Law Clerk

Feb. 16 Filing Motion of Defendant, 13 FdTTTerRood of~RaiTway and A !r 1! ne^CTerks^ta -ft rsm fsir
urrr
tfr

the complaint or in tTie a 1 ternaTtlve , 'll ranCTJeTeTTdarTT S'ummarY'jjTJtfqm̂ EmTT̂ MeTricrraTfd
of points in support of its motion tcJTFi smi ss CorripJainT: arrd~aTTtxl avTtr'u 1' tferrrra
D. Shaw and certificate of service! Copy delivered to the Law Clerk.

Mar. 1 Filing Defendant's Request tor Admission of Documents, with ce fX TTTcate “of
service.

Mar. 5 Memorandum of Po i nts ancTTCutTTor i t i es oTTIeTfendarvCs in suppoTt^T~Tfre''trJ1t3r1”orr
to Dismiss the Complaint or in the a ITernaT i ve, grant the D'fff5'fTttanTS—SlHiima ry""

Judgment wi th respect thereto. 1 .............
Mar. 5 Filing Motion of Defendants Locals No. 5 and 1586 o f t1rg~BTOTTer+RxnT-crf Rtrrtwar ~

and Air Line Clerks to Dismiss the Complaint or in the a ! termrrLv^~ffraTTt the-—
Defendants Summary Judgment., with cert i f i cate of service.

Mar. 5 Filing Affidavit of Kenneth D. Shaw.
Mar. 5 Filing Supplemental Affidavit of Kenneth 0. Shaw.
Mar. 22 Filinq Motion of Defendants Locals and Aurline Clerks to Dismiss First Amended c

Complaint or, in the alternative, grant defendants' Summary Judgment.
Mar. 22 Filinq Memorandum of Points and authorities of Defendants Locals and Airline —Clerks 1st support o f there motion to Dismiss First amended complaint .
Mar. 29 Filing | nterroga tor i es -No. 1 or Defendants B rotheriiood or Ra i Tway a ncT'ATrTTfTe

Clerks and Locals No. J> and N o. T586 thereoT^T6T7TTi ianTTngTTsITTTJf! ,
Elaintiff, with certificate of service.

__Apr. 5 _— —ElMnlrffls_Rep.lv t o  M o t io n  f o r  q in m arv  Itirlnmc.n1- rif H ofon /tan  <-
Toasl_Llxie_JLaiiroad Company,_____

Apr. 5 ----- EjJ.lELq.-P 1 a i n t. i f Els Memorandum nf law in nnnnc IMnn in m<-w- n!,™,!..
...  _De.leiLcj.ant.

__Apr. 5
, Apr. ,5__ .......  F i 1 *Ul£t_Ela in t i f f 19 A n r <; tn flnfnnHantlc I f*4-i

! May k Filing Objections to Plaintiff's Requests for TwJmi ss i ons, wilti Certificate of
Service. •

May 20 Filing Amendment to Defendant's Objections to Plaintiff's Request for“AdmissiOns 9
with certificate of service.

Hav 2! Filinq Notice to take testimony of William English, Jr. by Defendant on the
16th day of June, 1971 at 10:00 A. M. in the conference room of Conns rat,13 unn
Hunter, et al in Savannah, Ga.

June 3 Filing Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's
Complaint. ~ ' --

June k Filing Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and to Strike portions
. of Plaintiff's Complaint. Copy delivered to the Lav/ and entered on Motion Docke t.June h Fifing Defendant's Motion to require further answers to Defendant's \ nterrooatori

Entered on docketot Motions and delivered to the Law Clerk.
June 11 Filing Plaintiff's Memorandum in opposition to Motion o7~I5e Fendants Local

d_ L od ges  N o. 5 and !i>86 (BRAC) To Dismiss o r f o r  Summary ju d g m e n t . Copy S e l i v e r e
___ to the Law Clerk,
June 11 filing Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents with Certificate of

service. Copy delivered to the Law Clerk. . . . .



PROCEEDINGS r
Jut .

j une 1$ Filing Notice of Motion and attached Motion for a Rearing in Nature of Pre-Trial
conference, and for an order limiting further motions to dismiss or for summary
Judgment, ■

June 17 Fijjjn^Plaintiff's Answers to 1 nterroqatories No, 1 of Defendants Brotherhood 0
Ftailway and Airline Clerks and Local No. 5 and No, 1586. with certificate of
service. Copy delivered to the Law Clerk.

June !7 Filing Plaintiff's First Interrogatories to Defendants Brae and Locals 5 and
1586 thereof,

June 17 Filina Plaintiff's Further Motion for leave to amend Comolaint
June 21 Filing Defendant's Objections to Request tor Production of Documents

6/11/7]_
Jun 29 Filing and entering Plaintiff's second interrogatories to defendant Seaboard roa«it

ling railroad company with certificate of service.
Jul 0 Pi ling uns^nliio Doposit'ion or VII 1 £nc|1isFi$ jr©^ ta1<@n by d©fenddnts®
Ju! 8 Filing Objections of Defendants Brotherhood of Railway and Airlln« r 1 >»rkn ar»rl

8RAC Locals Nos, 5 and 1586 to Answering the Plaintiff's First Int.rrnMtnrl^
At fhis nrea.

Ju 1 8 Answer of Defendants Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks and BRAF inrak N,3S «
— S and I586 in.,,. Ops os. 11 f on to .Mott on of Plaintiff for He»rlnn In th* „  s
Trial Conference and for an Order Llmi tina Further Motions to D k m k e  c.mJ,,...u cf gTitcs n & ©

Jul JU~ Filing Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company's Answers to Plaintiff's R(cor
!nterrogatories, with certificate of service thereon.

Aug. 13 fiction to Compe 1 Dcf’BndBnt Sc«3D03rd to Answer P13 t nt i f f ̂ s RpruiBs,t  f’or A^mi^s ions
and Memorandum m  Support of Plaintiff's Request for Admissions, with certifieat j*
of service thereon.Aug. 1 $ Hot son to Compe 1 Pioductson of Documents for Inspection 3nd Copy inp And for Co^t
and Memorandum in Support of Motion, with certificate of service thereon.

Aug. 13 — Filing Memorandum in Oppos i tl.on._£o defendant - Seaboard's Motion to Strike Porfio
of r j_a i nt i f  f s Comp 1 a i n t . w i th cert i f t c a t e of service thereon. u  —

__A U C k - H _ - dear m g  field aJL. Savannah on various Motions of plaintiff and defendants. Seaboard
given 60 days to answer Requests for Admissions; within 60 days, defendant to make
available records to plaintiffs for inspection and copying

Aug. 17 Filina Order on Motions of Plaintiff and Defendants.
Sept* 7 Filing and entering order staying the action until Plaintiff files an amendment.

Sept 5 Filing and entering order directing they a class action shaT! Te maintained unde r
the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Uivi 1 Procedure as amended.
with attached notice of pend̂ /fĉ  and copy of notice, copy ~o1 ordeT cjorx seivcj-d—
to all counsel this date.

Sep t. J § Filing Motion of Plaintiff to Certify the Order of September 7. I97F, as Aopealab e ,
_ with certificate of service thereon.
Sept. 18 .Fi 11 n.g_and entering,. Amended Order statinq that Order of September 7. 1971 is

appea1able and allowinq plaintiff ten days to file an application for permission
to appeal. Copies served on all counsel. ~

Oct. 7 Filing Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Rai1 road Company' s  Answers to Plaintrff‘+5'
__ Reauests for Admission, with certificate of service thereon.

Oct. 8 Filing Interrogatories to Members of the Class Represented by William Enqlfsh. Jr|
“ i « r r — T r — with certificate of service thereon.
Oct, 15 Filing Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company's Answers to Plaintiff's Second ........ i
------ Interrogatories. '  " " "  - ■ —  -  -
Oct, 18 Filing letter trom Morris J« Bailer addressed to Malcolm Maclean A t to mev

regarding the availability in Waycross of certain documents which were ordered
by the Court to produce for inspection and copying, to-wi t• Typing test®
seniority rosters and the Teaboard Memorandum regarding educational crTterTa.

\ -



D. O. 110A R®v. C iv il D o ck et C o n tin u atio n

w n ; PKOCSEDINOS rJu
Nov. 9 Filing Plaintiff’s Answers and Objections to Interrogatories served by Defendant 

Railroad,, with certificate of service.
Nov. 9 Filing Plaintiff’s Motion for a Protective Order» with certificate of service®
Nov* 9 Filing Plaintiff's Brief In support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Rule 26 Protec­

tive order* with certificate of service.
Nov, 3 Filing Notice of and Motion of Plaintiff to enforce immediate compliance# 

with order of the Court, and for an award of costs amd Counsel Fees.
Nov. 12 Filing true copy of Order issued by the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Circuit on application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory 
order entered on September 18, 1971 granting the application and ordering 
that it be expedited.

Nov. 15 riling copies of Correspondence relative to possible merger of consolidation 
of locals (two letters)

Nov. 17 Filing Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company's Third Interrogatories, Defendant 
propounded to Plaintiff, with certificate of service.

Nov. 22 Filing Notice of and Motion of Plaintiff to Withdraw Motion to enforce immediate
compliance with order of this Court and and for an award of costs and Counsel's 
fees filed November 8, 1971. In accordance with this motion removed the 
motion for motion docket.

Nov. 2.3 Filing Certificate of service filed by Defendant certifying that in accordance 
with this Court's order of August 17, 1971, that a copy of Notice of Pendency of 
Action and Request for Exclusion has been posted on the respective bulletin
and handed to the persons involved except those listed on letter from W. W. Hucke 
attached to certificate and certification of mailing copy of this certificate

b;

on counsel.
Nov. 2*+th Record on Interlocutory Appeal consisting of documents as shown on copy of 

Index in file and original deposition or William English* Jr.* mailed this 
date to Court of Appeals* New Orleans* La,

-•

Nov. 26 Filing Plaintiff's Supplemental Answers to Defendant, Seaboard Coast Line Rai1roa 
Company's Interrogatories served on Plaintiff on October 8, 1971, with Cert, of 
service.

J

Nov. 26 Filing Plaintiff's Further Answers to Interrogatories of Defendant, in compliance 
with order of Court entered August 17, 1971, hereby provoding further answers to 
certain interrogatories previously propounded by Defendant.

Nov. 29 Filing Acknowledgment from U. S. Court of Appea1s of the record on appea1,receiv 
in that office November 26, 1971.

2*

Pec. 16 Filing Renewal of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to his interrogatories to 
Defendant Unions and for Costs, with certificate of service thereon.

Dec, 20 Filing Answers of Defendants Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks and Locals
5 and 1586 thereof to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories, with certificate of serv 
thereon. i

Dec. 20 Filing Plaintiff's Answers to Seaboard's Third 1nterrogatories, with certificate c 
service thereon.

1

' Dec. 23 Filing Answer of Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks and Locals 5 and 1586 
thereof in Opposition to Renewal of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to 
Interrogatories, with certificate of service thereon.

Dec, 2? Filing Notice of Motion and Motion of Plaintiff for a preliminary injunction.
Dec. 27 Filing Court's Order to Show cause why an order should not be entered enjoining 

Defendant from ordering, requiring or approving consolidation of Defendant Local 
Union 1586 oft BTAC with Defendant Local Union 5 of BRAC to be held at 10:00 A. M. 
°n December 28, 197 3, in the United States Courthouse at Savannah, Georgia. Copy



DATE

12-28-71 

12- 28" 7 1 

12"28-71

1972 
Jan* 2 5

Jan. 25

Jan. 25 
Jan. 27

Jan. 27

Jan. 28

i
j March- 8 

1 March 17
f
I Apr® 26 

; Apr® 26

!
Apr. 28

j May 9 

: May 9 

May 25th
f

May 31 

May 31

June 7 

June If
i

of show cause order mailed to a!! Counsel of Record this date.
Hearing held this date on plaintiff's Motion for preliminary injunction on merger 
of BRAC Nos. 5 and 1586. Witnesses sworn and evidence introduced.

| Filing plaintiff's memorandum of law in support of motion for preliminary 
i nj uncfc ion.
Filing and entering Order recessing proceedings until 3:00 P.M. l-27”72 in Savanna! 
and further restraining and enjoining unions from completing merger until 1 — 27“72.

■ (All counsel served with copies of this Order by hand this date.)

Filing Answer of Brotherhood of Railway & Airline Clerks to Motion of Plaintiff for 
Preliminary Injunction concerning consolidation of Brae Locals 5 & 1586.
Filing Memorandum of Points & authorities of Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Cler 
In support of opposition to Motion of the Plaintiff for a preliminary injunction ecu 
the consolidation of Brae locals §& 1586.
Filing Affidavit of A. L. Groves with exhibits attached.
1 Hearing held this date on question of proposed merger of 2 unions. Order to be ert 
when parties have worked out details and submitted Order to the Court.
.Filing Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Prelir 
Injunction with certificate of service attached.
;Filing order of court dated January 28, 1972 with directives and guidelines as to t
■ fM&k merger of Local Lodge No. 5 and Local Lodge No. J586 wi th the Grand Lodge and 1 
: issuance of new charter.
: Filing Plaintiff’s Request for Admission of facts with Notice to Attorney for 
; Befertdant.
'Filing Defendant's Response to Request for Admission of Facts , wi th certificate 
: of service.
;Filing Defendant's (Seaboard Coast Line RR) third amendment to its Answer, with 
certificate of service thereon®
.Filing Defendant's (Seaboard Coast Line RR) eighth Motions stating that they move 
the court for an order limiting all back pay sought under Title VII of the Civil 
Flights Act of 196^, that such orders .issue defining and limiting the scope of the 
; available recovery in this case, with certificate of service thereon©

F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  M o ^ 9 n t h a t  t h e  C ou rt  o r d e r  T r i a l  b y  J u r y  o f  a l l  
: i s s u e s  h e r e i n  in  a n y / r e l a t i n g  t o  m onetary  r e l i e f ,  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 h e r e o n .
I F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  F u r t h e r  R equ est  f o r  A d m is s io n  o f  F a c t s  w i t h  

N o t i c e  t o  C ou n se l  f o r  D e fe n d a n t .
t F i l i n g  S e a b o a rd  C o a s t  L in e  R a i l r o a d  Company's  R espon se  t o  P l a i n t i f f
i f u r t h e r  r e q u e s t  f o r  a d m i s s i o n  o f  F a c t s . ,  w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e .
: F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  T h i r d  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t o  D e fe n d a n t  S e a b o a r d  Coasj
! L ine  R a i l r o a d ,  With c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  a t t a c h e d ,  
i 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  t o  P l a i n t i f f ' s  T h i r d  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ,
; w i th  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  a t t a c h e d .
; F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  m o t i o n  t o  d i s m i s s  a l l  c l a i m s ,  t o  r e d u c e  any atto :
! f e e s ,  t o  l i m i t  m on eta ry  damages, i f  r e c o v e r e d ,  and t o  l i m i t  t h e  re l :
' s o u g h t  t o  t h e  Stox 'es Department  o f  t h e  Seaboard  C o a s t  L in e  R a i l r o a d  

Company's  W aycross  D i v i s i o n . ,  w i th  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  t h e r e o n ,  j 
1 F i l i n g  Supplamhiit t o  P l a i n t i f f ' s  f u r t h e r  r e q u e s t  f o r  a d m i s s i o n  o f  
i f a c t 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  a t t a c h e d .
: .  F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  S econ d  O b j e c t i o n s  t o  P l a i n t i f f ' s  T h i r d  I n t e r r o g  
: w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .



D« O, 110A iter. Olril Docket C ontinuation

D A T S

1972__

A ugust  3

S e p t .  1

S e p t .  1

S e p t .  5 

S e p t .  7

Sept  7 

Sept  7

'jS ept. 8

S e p t .  12 

S e p t . 15

S e p t . 22 

) •

PROCEEDIN GS

! F i l i n g  O p in io n  and Judgment o f  the  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  C o u r t  o f  A p p e a ls  
a f f i r m i n g  th e  o r d e r  o f  t h i s  C ourt  a p p e a l e d  from  i s s u e d  8 - 1 8 - 7 1  
and rem anding  th e  c a u s e  t o  the  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t  i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  

t h e  o p i n i o n  o f  t h a t  C o u r t ,  f u r t h e r  o r d e r i n g  t h a t  t h e  P l a i n t i f f -  
a p p e l l a n t  b e  condemned t o  pay  i n - h a l f  o f  th e  c o s t s  on a p p e a l  t o  
b e  t a x e d  b y  the  C o u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  and t h a t  th e  D e f e n d a n t s - a p p e l l e e s  
be  condemned t o  p a y  o n e - h a l f  o f  s a i d  c o s t s .
F i l i n g  O rd er  o f  t h i s  C o u r t  making the  Judgment o f  t h e  U n i t e d  S ta te :  

C ou rt  o f A p p e a l s  t h e  Judgment o f  th e  D i s t r i c t  C o u r t ,  f u r t h e r  o r d e r i n  
t h a t  P l a i n t i f f  amend h i s  c o m p l a i n t  t o  j o i n  as  D e fe n d a n t s  one o r  rnor 
White Em ployees  o f  S e a b o a rd  C o a s t l i n e  R a i l r o a d  , whose  s e n i o r i t y  ms 
be  a f f e c t e d  by  t h e  outcom e  o f  t h i s  c a s e .  F a i l u r e  t o  do  s o  w i t h i n  
30 days  w i l l  r e s u l t  i n  d i s m i s s a l  o f  t h i s  c a s e .
F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  Amended C o m p la in t .  P r e p a r e d  summons and d e l i v e r  

t o  the  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  M a rsh a l  f o r  s e r v i c e  on R o b e r t  T h ig p e n  and D e l l  
B e a s l e y ,  w h i t e  e m p lo y e e s  h o l d i n g  j o b s  i n  g ro u p  1 a t  D e fe n d a n t  
R a i l r o a d ,  W a y c r o s s ,  G e o r g i a  D i v i s i o n .  Copy s e r v e d  on C o u n s e l .

Q?he o r i g i n a l  E x h i b i t s  r e t u r n e d  t o  t h i s  o f f i c e  f r o m  t h e  o f f i c e  
o f  C l e r k ,  U. S. C o u r t  o f  A p p e a ls  f i l e d  w i t h  th e  i n t e r l o c u t o r y  appeal  
F i l i n g  c o p y  o f  B i l l  o f  C o s t s  i s s u e d  b y  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  C ou rt  o f  

A p p e a ls  f o r  the  F i f t h  C i r c u x t  , t a x e d  a g a i n s t  t h e  p a r t i e s  e q u a l l y  
. f o r  c o s t s  i n c u r e e d  i n  t h e  C ourt  o f  A p p e a l s .
F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ' s  M o t io n  f o r  t h e  C ou rt  t o  o r d e r  t h a t  n o t i c e  b e  
g i v e n  t o  a l lm em bers  o f  t h e  c l a s s  o f  d e f s ,  in  o r d e r  t h a t  a l l  members 
o f  s a i d  c l a s s  b e  a p p r i s e d  o f  ; th e  p e n d e n cy  o f  t h i s  a c t i o n  and - the ir  
r i g h t s  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  h e r e i n .
P i l i n g  and e n t e r i n g  O rder  o f  C ou rt  o r d e r / t f i a t  a l l  members o f  s a i d  c l  
b e  a p p r i s e d  o f  t h e  p e n d e n cy  o f  t h i s  a c t i o n .  Copy o f  O r d e r  s e r v e d  
on a l l  C o u n s e l  o f  r e c o r d  and n o t i c e  o f  f i l i n g  s e r v e d  a l s o  t h i s  d a t e .  
F i l i n g  l e t t e r  o f  r e c o r d  i n f o r m i n g  t h a t  t h e  c o s t  o f  $ 1 3 6 .3 5  h a s  b e e n  
p a i d  by M alco lm  M aclean  t o  F l e t c h e r  F a r r i n g t o n  i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i th  
B i l l  o f  C o s t  a p p ro v e d  b y  F i f t h  C i r c u i t .

F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  M o t io n  t o  Compel Answers t o  P l a i n t i f f ' s  D i s c o v e r ;
and t o  s h o r t e n  t im e  t o  answ er ,  w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .

F i l i n g  U. S. M a r s h a l ' s  R t u r n  on C i v i l  C o m p la in t  s e r v e d  on Mr.
D e l l  B e a s l e y ,  W a y c r o s s ,  Ga. ,  s e r v e d  on 9 - 7 - 7 2  and R etu rn  on 
s e r v i c e  o f  C o m p la in t  on Mr. R o b e r t  T h ig p e n ,  W a r e s b o r o ,  G e o r g i a  on 
September 7, 1972 .
F i l i n g  D e f e n d a n t ’ s C e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  o f  c o p y  o f  N o t i c e  o f  

Pendency  o f  A c t i o n  by  p o s t i n g  on r e s p e c t i v e  b u l l e t i n  b o a r d s  and 
h a n d in g  t o  th e  p e r s o n s  i n  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  t h i s  C o u r t ' s o r d e r  o f  
September 7, 1972 e x c e p t  f o r  t h o se  l i s t e d  on l i s t  a t t a c h e d  t o  t h i s  
c e r t i f i c a t e  and b y  m a i l i n g  a c o p y  t o  M essrs  B a i l e r ,  F l e t c h e r ,
f a m n g t o n , James L. Highsaw, S t a n l e y  Karsman and Edward A .  Charron 
d a t e d  t h i s  d a t e .
F i l i n g  D e fen d a n ts  M ot ion  f o r  ' iSOURTt t o  i s s u e  O r d e r  c o m p e l l i n g  
P l t f .  t o  j o i n  th e  a f o r e m e n t i o n e d  e m p l j o y e e s  a s  p a r t i e s  d e f f  h e r e i n .

S e p t . 25



PROCEEDINGSDATE
1972

S e p t .  25 

S e p t .  27

S e p t .  29

F i l i n g  and e n t e r i n g  O rder  o f  C ourt  t h a t  P l t f .  show c a u s e  on O c t .  20*
! 1972 a t  1 0 :0 0  A .M. why s a i d  m o t i o n  s h o u ld  n o t  b e  g r a n t e d .  N o t i c e  
; o f  f i l i n g  and c o p y  o f  o r d e r  s e r v e d  on a l l  p a r t i e s .

F i l i n g  M o t io n  t o  D is m is s  b y  D e fe n d a n t s  D e l l  B e a s l e y ,  R o b e r t  T h igpen  
and J .  F. Yawn, J r .  and o t h e r  p e r s o n s  s i m i l a r l y  s i t u a t e d  h a v in g  b een  

made D e fe n d a n t s  p u r s u a n t  t o  o r d e r  o f  t h i s  C ou rt  d a t e d  September 7, 
1972 and Answer o f  t h e  a f o r e s a i d  D e fe n d a n t s .

F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  Amendment t o  h i s  M o t io n  t o  C o m p e l . answ ers  t o  
■ " P l a i n t i f f  s D i s c o v e r y  and t o  s h o r t e n  t im e  t o  A nswer ,  w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  

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

Oc t . 11

O c t . 16

O c t . 16

O c t . 16

O c t . 16
.

Oct, .18

Oct» 18

O c t .  19

■■ F i l i n g  Copy o f  S e a b o a r d  C o a s t  L in e  R a i l r o a d  Company 's  Seventh  B r i e i  
'The o r i g i n a l  d e l i v e r e d  t o  Judge  Lawrence by  the  R a i l r o a d ' s  A t t o r n e y .

F i l i n g  Copy o f  S e b o a r d  C o a s t  L ine  R a i l r o a d  Company 's  S i x t h  B r i e f .  
O r i g i n a l  d e l i v e r e d  t o  the  Judge .

F i l i n g  D e fe n d a n t  R a i l r o a d ' s  Secon d  R espon se  t o  P l a i n t i f f ' s ( S e c o n d )
; R eq u es t  f o r  A d m is s i o n  o f  F a c t s .
j F i l i n g  D e fe n d a n t  R a i l r o a d s ' s S u p p lem en ta l  Answers  t o  P l a i n t i f f ' s  
■ T h i r d  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .
: F i l i n g  D e fe n d a n t  R a i l r o a d ' s  Second  R espon se  t o  F u r t h e r  R equ est  f o r  
• a d m is s i o n  o f  f a c t s  and supp lem ent  t h e r e t o .
Filing Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company1s Motion to compel 

; Plaintiff to provide notice of-magnitude and method of couputation to be provided 
as to each employee relative back pay„

. Filing and entering order amending prior order of Court dated Sept, 7, 1972^
; to join as parties defendant all former members of the Transportqtion- 
: Communication Employees Union in or near Waycross, Ga*, who are now shown onthe

July 1, 1972^ seniority roster for the Brotherhood of Rai1way,AAirline and 
! Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees for the 
; Waycross Division, SCI Railroad Company®
i. F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  F i r s t  R equ est  f o r  A d m is s i o n s  o f  F a c t  t o  

D e fe n d a n t  BRAC, w i t h  n o t i c e  t o  D e f e n d a n t ' s  A t t o r n e y s .

Oct. 19 ’1
Oct e 20

i • i

Oct, 20 :
; »

i Oct. 24 :
I ;!
!

i .

F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ; s  Fourth  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t o  D e fe n d a n t  S eaboard  
C o a s t l i n e  R a i l r o a d  Company, w i t h  N o t i c e t o  D e f e n d a n t s '  A t t o r n e y s .
Pre-Trial conference held this date - not recorded - Counsel consented to 
trial of all issues before Court without Jury ■» Motion of white employees 
overruled » Case assigned for trial at 9:30 A„M» on January 8th, 1973 - to be 
tried in Two phases - first phase to encompass issue of discrimination ~ 
second phase to encompass phase of back pay and injunctive relief - counsel 
apprised of time of trial in open Court,
Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad filed Identification of Additional 
Patties and 8th Brief®

F i l i n g  o r d e r  o f  C ou rt  upon v a r i o u s  m o t i o n s  o f  th e  p a r t i e s  d e n y in g  
D e fen d a n t  R a i l r o a d ' s  M ot ion  f o r  a j u r y  t r i a l ;  D en ying  D e f e n d a n t ' s  
r e q u e s t s  t o  expand  the  s c o p e  o f  t h i s  l i t i g a t i o n  t o  encom pass  the 

e n t i r e  W a y cross  D i v i s i o n  and t h a t  t h e  C ourt  c o n f i n e  t h e  a c t i o n  t o  ■ 
S t o r e s  Department  i n  W aycross  and t h e  p r i o r  r u l i n g  as t o  the  s c o p e  < 

the  c a s e  rem ains  i n  e f f e c t ;  Denying  D e fe n d a n t  SC L 's  m o t i o n s  t o  
com pel  P l a i n t i f f  t o  d e s c r i b e  i n  d e t a i l  has  p r o p o s e d  m ethod  f o r  'Com­
p u t a t i o n  o f  b a c k  p ay  w i t h  th e  s u g g e s t i o n  t h a t  such  i n f o r m a t i o n  i s



C/A 691 ENGLISH VS. SEABOARD COASTLINE RR.
D. O. 110A Rev. C iv il D ocket C o n tin u atio n

DATE

1972 PROCEEDINGS

V

O c t .  26 

O c t .  31

Nov. 3 

Nov. 3 

Nov. ' 6

Nov. 16 

Nov. 16 

Dec. 7

Dec. 13

t e n v i n f ^ f t h H°” f  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t o  o b t a i n  p l a i n t i f f ' s  t h e o r y ;
p o r t ? o ^ r »  " f - “  t 0  DiSmlSS thE C l a s s  “ t i o a  and a t t ^ n e y s

Co™ S h ™  f )  The J o i n d e r  Of  Former T r a n s p o r t a t i o n -
accomplished hv-P 0ye';“„U:il°n Members at or near Waycross having been
P l a i r t i - ? s  M n f i ament e 0 r d * r  O c t o b e r  l s - 1 9 7 2 - t h i s  m o t i o n  i s  m oot ;

D e fe n d a n t -  B e a ^ e  !  “ T } an™ e r s  t o  R e c o v e r y  a r e  d e n ie d  as  moo D e f e n d a n t . ,  E e a . l e y ,  e t  a l  ( th e  w h i t e  c l e r k s )  M o t io n  t o  D is m iss  -
‘  T * 1* 1 ° f  t b l a c a s e  sha11 ba ln  two s t a g e s  t o  commence Dan.

, 1973 i n  Savannah s h a l l  d e a l  s o l e l y  w i t h  t h e  q u e s t i o n  o f  d i s c r i m i n  
e l ^ n o n .  A l l  o t h e r  q u e s t i o n s  s h a l l  be  r e s e r v e d  f o r  h e a r i n g  a t  " l a t e ?

[ co p y  o f  o r d e r  m a i l e d  t o  a l l  c o u n s e l )

Ft o 1p l a i n S f f rdw<? ? ? St  • R a l l r o a d  Com pany 's  F o u r th  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e st o  P l a i n t i f f ,  w i th  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  a t t a c h e d .

Fa r d np l ^ t 66^n t Dr r ° g a t 0 r i e S  ° f  P l a i n t i f f  p r o p o u n d e d  t o  D e fen d a n t  
and P l a i n t i f f  s R eq u est  f o r  P r o d u c t i o n  o f  D ocum ents ,  w i t h  c e r t  o f

s e r v i c e  t o  C h a r l e s  Edwards, A t t o r n e y  f o r  D e fe n d a n t

^ i S 9c e S f ? 2 t e ° : f s e i : i c e ai h ; ? : o n ? 0mPany' S “  * « » » “ * “ *
F i l i n g  T h i r d  C e r t i f i c a t e  o f  S e r v i c e  s t a t i n g  t h a t  n o t i c e  o f  p en d en cy  

o f  a c t i o n  ha s  b e e n  d e l i v e r e d  t o  a l l  p a r t i e s  l i s t e d  in  th e  ID o f  
a d d i t i o n a l  p a r t i e s  f i l e d  O c t .  19 ,  1972.

F i l i n g  R esponse  o f  SCL R a i l r o a d  Company t o  P l a i n t i f f ' s  se co n d  s e t  o f  
I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  numbered " F o u r t h ” and P l a i n t i f f ' s  R e q u e s t  f o r  p r o ­
d u c t i o n  o f  D ocu m en ts , w i th  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  a t t a c h e d .
F i l i n g  D e fe n d a n t ,  SCL R a i l r o a d  C o . ' s  S u p p le m e n ta l  Answers  t o  P l a i n
t i r f s  f i r s t  and se c o n d  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 i  
a t t a  c h e d .  r

C° aSb L ln e  R a i l r o a d  Company 's  M o t io n  t o  Compel
(Conv d . 1 • r r o g a t o r i e s ,  w i th  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  a t t a c h e d(Copy d e l i v e r e d  t o  Judge L a w r e n c e . )  a t t a c h e d .

F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  N o t i c e  t o  take  d e p o s i t i o n  o f  f o u r  p e r s o n s  l i s t e d
t a k e ^ i ^ « nnh ? ' ° n DeCetaber 2 0 ' 1 9 72 ' aabd d e p o s i t i o n s  s h a l l  be  +

»  h  , °  “  ° f  the D i v i s i o n  S u p e r u n t e n d e n t .  Seaboard  C oa s t
L ine  R a i l r o a d  Company, W a y cro ss ,  G e o r g ia  The D ep onents  a r e :
Mr, W. w. H uck eb a ( lO  A. M. )
Seaboard  C o a s t  L ine  T erm ina l  
Mr. A. A .  K a r l e (11 A. M. )
Seaboard  C o a s t  L in e  T e r m in a l ,  W a y cro ss ,  Ga,
Mr. K . c . May ( 2 P . M . )
Seaboard  C oa s t  L in e  T e rm in a l ,  W aycross  r a 
Mr. R ober t  T on in g  (4 P. M. )  ' Ga "
Seaboard  C o a s t  L in e  T e r m in a l ,  W a y cro ss ,  Ga,

W a y cro ss ,  Ga.



D A I'S
1972

Dec .  21
PRO CEED IN G S I.Ju

D ec .  22 
1973 

Jan „ 8

Jan 8
J a n . 8 
J a n .  8

J a n . 8K 4

J

J a n . 9 

. Jan .  10

Jan .  11 

J a n .  15 

J a n .  16

Feb .  20 

Feb .  20

H ea r in g  h e l d t h i s  d a t e  b e f o r e  the  C o u r t  a t  Savannah, G e o r g ia  on 
D e f e n d a n t ' s  M ot ion  f o r  j u r y  t r i a l  and P l a i n t i f f ' s  o b j e c t i o n s  t o  

: com pe l  answ ers  t o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s .  C o u r t  o v e r r u l e d  the  M ot ion  f o r  
j u r y  t r i a l .  On o b j e c t i o n ,  t o  i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ,  a f t e r  c o n f e r e n c e  

, b e tw een  th e  c o u r t  and c o u n s e l ,  C o u n s e l  was d i r e c t e d  t o  g e t  t o g e t h e r  
j an<  ̂ i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s  t o  be d i r e c t e d  th rou g h  Jzhe C o u r t  t o  each  member 

o f  d ie  c l a s s  w i t h  r e s p e c t  t o  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  as t o  c l e r i c a l  work.
■ r i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  Answers t o  S e a b o a r d ’ s F o u r th  I n t e r r o g a t o r i e s ,  w i t  

c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  a t t a c h e d .
' F i l i n g  D e p o s i t i o n s

F x l r n g  P r e - T r i a l  Memorandum f o r  P l a i n t i f f ,  w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v j c <  
F i  1 i n g  A f  f  i d a v i t  o f  F r e d e r i c ‘k S . M i t t  1 aman.
F i x i n g  Answer o f  D e ie n d a n t ,  B r o t h e r h o o d  o f  R a i lw a y  and A i r  Line  

C l e r k s  t o  P l a i n t i f f ; s F i r s t  R eq u es t  f o r  A d m i s s i o n s  o f  F a c t  t o  
D e fe n d a n t  BTAC, w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .

N o n - j u r y  t r i a l  c a l l e d  t h i s  d a t e  , a l l  a v a i l a b l e  w i t n e s s e s  c a l l e d  
and^ sworn a l l  A t t o r n e y s  p r e s e n t .  W i t n e s s e s  b e g a n  . t e s t i f y i n g  f o r  
P l a i n t i f f .  C o u r t  r e c e s s e d  u n t i l  9 :1 5  P.M. on J a n u a ry  9, .1973.

C ou rt  resumed w i t h  t r i a l  o f  t h i s  c a s e  and W i t n e s s e s  t e s t i f i e d  and 
r e c e s s e d  f o r  the  d ay .

C ou rt  resumed w i t h  t r i a l  o f  t h i s  c a s e  and r e c e s s e d  u n t i l  
January  11 ,  1973 .

and r e c e s s e d

Mar. 2 

Mar. 5 

Nov. 16

C ou r t  resumed w ith  D e f e n d a n t ' s  w i t n e s s e s  t e s t i f y i n g  
u n t i l  Monday, J a n u a ry  15, 1973.

ir^ .a l  c o n t i n u e d  w i t h  w i t n e s s e s  t e s t i f y i n g  and r e c e s s e d  u n t i l  
J a n u a ry  16, 1973 .
I r i a l  o f  c a s e  resumed w i t h  w i t n e s s e s  t e s t i f y i n g .  R e b u t t a l  w i t n e s s  
f o r  P l a i n t i f f  t e s t i f i e d  and t r i a l  r e c e s s e d  a t  3 :5 0  P.M. u n t i l  
f u r t h e r  n o t i c e .  A l l  p a r t i e s  t o  subm it  b r i e f s  b y  F e b ru a ry  19 ,  1973
F i l i n g  Copy o r  P l a i n t i f f ' s  MemorandumAfter T r i a l  and p r o p o s e d  
o r d e r .  The o r i g i n a l  d e l i v e r e d  t o  Judge  L a w r e n c e .

F i l i n g  P o s t  T r i a l  B r i e f  o f  D e fe n d a n t s  B r o t h e r h o o d  o f  R a i lw ay  A i r  
L ine  and Steam ship  C l e r k s ,  F r e i g h t  H a n d l e r s ,  E x p re s s  and S t a t i o n  
Employees and L o c a l s  Nos.  5 and 1586 T h e r e o f  on i s s u e  o f  
L i a b i l i t y .  Mr. Karsman d e l i v e r e d  a c o p y  t o  Jud ge  Law rence .

■ F i l i n g  S ea b oa rd  C oa s t  L in e  R a i l r o a d  Company 's  P o s t - t r i a l  R ep ly  B r i e ’f 
P r o p o s e d  o r d e r .  Copy d e l i v e r e d  t o  Judge  L a w ren ce .

1 B R P^ i n t l 5 f ; S r e p l y  t o  P0s t - t r i a l  b r i e f s  o f  D e fe n d a n t s  SCL and 
BRAC, w ith  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e  a t t a c h e d .

' F i l i n g  and e n t e r i n g  O rder  o f  C ou rt  t h a t  t h e  p a r t i e s  h e r e t o ,  t h e i r  
: o f f i c e r s ,  a g e n t s ,  e m p lo y e e s ,  s e r v a n t s  and a l l  o t h e r  p e r s o n s  and 
o r g a n i z a t i o n s  in  a c t i v e  c o n c e r t  o r  p a r t i c i p a t i o n  w i th  them, are  h e r e ­
b y  p erm a n en t ly  e n j o i n e d  and r e s t r a i n e d  from e n g a g i n g  in  any employment 

■ p r a c t i c e  o r  c o u r s e  o f  c o n d u c t  which  i n t e r f e r e s  w i t h  o r  i s  c o n t r a r y  t b  
t h i s  O rder .  N o t i c e  o f  f i l i n g  and c o p y  o f  o r d e r  s e r v e d  on a l l  c o u n s e l .



D , O. I IGA R av. OiTU D o ck et C o n tin u a tio n

DATE
1973

Nov. 28

PBOOKKDXliafl

F i l i n g  S e a b o a r d  C oa s t  L in e  iR ai lroad  Company 's  S i x t e e n t h  M o t io n  
r e q u i r i n g  c l a s s  r e p r e s e n t e d  by  P l a i n t i f f  be  d e f i n e d  as A l l  Negro  
E m ployees  o f  S e a b oa rd  C oa s t  L in e  R a i l r o a d  Company o r  i t s  c o r p o r a t e  
p r e d e c e s s o r s  who h a v e ,  s i n c e  J u l y  1 , i 9 6 d , b e e n  a member o f  o r  
e l i g i b l e  f o r  m em bership - ' in  the  B r o t h e r h o o d  o f  R a i lw a y ,  A i r l i n e ,  
a n d "S te a m s h ip  C l e r k s ,  F r e i g h t  h a n d l e r s ,  E x p re s s  and S t a t i o n  
E m p loy ees ,  w i t h  Rule  N i s i  O rder  s c h e d u l i n g  show ca u se  h e a r i n g  

b e f o r e  t h e  C ou rt  on December 12, 1973 a t  1 1 :0 0  A.  M . , why the  
m o t i o n  s h o u l d  n o t  be  g r a n t e d .  (Malcolm M a c le a n ,  C ounse l  f o r  
D e fe n d a n t  R a i l r o a d  s e r v e d  c o p y  o f  m o t i o n  and r u l e  n i s i  s e t t i n g  
show c a u s e  h e a r i n g  on a l l  C o u n s e l . )

Dec . 6

D e c . 7

Dec .  12 

Deci  13 

1974 

J a n .  31

i

Mar. 22

A p r i l  11 

May 16 

, May 30

1975 
Mar. 3

F i l i n g  R espon se  o f  D e fe n d a n t s  B r o t h e r h o o d  o f  R ai lw ay  and A i r l i n e  
C l e r k s ,  e t  a l  t o  D e fen d a n t  S ea b oa rd  C o a s t  L in e  R a i l r o a d  Company’ s 
S i x t e e n t h  M o t io n ,  w i t h  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .
F i l i n g  M o t i o n  o f  Mr. Edward W Coleman, th ro u g h  C o u n se l ,  f o r ^ l e a v e  

t o  i n t e r v e n e  o r  a l t e r n a t i v e l y ,  t o  a p p e a r  as  amicus  C u r ia e ,  w i t h  
memorandum o f  p o i n t s  and a u t h o r i t i e s  i n  o p p o s i t i o n  t o  Seaboard. Coas 
l i n e  R a i l r o a d  C o ' s  S i x t e e n t h  M o t i o n s .
H e a r in g  h e l d  t h i s  d a t e .  C o u r t  r e s e r v e d  r u l i n g  in  s a id  c a s e  on t h e
m o t i o n  t o  r e d e f i n e  c l a s s .  \
F i l i n g  Ox*der on M o t io n  o f  D e fen d a n t  R a i l r o a d  x o r  Gxpansion  o f  th e  i
c l a s s  r e p r e s e n t e d  b y  t h e  P l a i n t i f f .  Copy m a i l e d  t o  a l l  C o u n s e l .

F i l i n g  O rder  d a t e d  t h i s  d a t e  amending t h i s  C o u r t ' s  o r d e r  o f  t h e  j
16th  day o f  November,  1973 r e l a t i v e  t o  memorandum agreem ent  merging 
Brae Groups 1 and 2 o v e r  th e  e n t i r e  SCL System, e f f e c t i v e  March 
1, 1973 and adopecjlgby th e  November 16, 1973 o r d e r .  S a id  a g r e e m e n t s '  
d a t e d  J a nua ry  1 2 /a n d  J a nuary  30, 1974 a re  amended and a d o p t e d  by  
t h i s  C ou rt  and made a p a r t  o f  t h i s  o r d e r . [ A l l  C ounse l  m a i l e d  a

c o p y  o f  o r d e r ] . .
T h is  c a s e  c o n s o l i d a t e d  t h i s  d a t e  b y  o r d e r  o f  C ourt  e n t e r e d  in  
Savannah C/A 2 3 7 1 -L o r e n z o  Hayes ,  e t  a l  v .  S ea b oa rd  C oast  L in e  
R a i l r o a d  C o . ,  e t  a l -  w i t h  s a i d  Savannah Case f o r  t r i a l  m  the  s e c o

s t a g e s  o f  t h i s  c a s e .  . . _ . . ..
F i l i n g  M o t io n  f o r  e n t r y  o f  d e c i s i o n  w i t h i n  t h i r t y  d a y s ,  [ o f  P l a m t i r i
w ith  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .
F i l i n g  P l a i n t i f f ' s  P r o p o s e d  C o n c l u s i o n s  o f  Law, w i th  c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  

s e r v i c e .
F i l i n g  SCL RR Company's  r e s p o n s e  t o  P l a i n t i f f ' s  Amendment t o  h i s  p r o  
p o s e d  O rder  and P l a i n t i f f ' s  p r o p o s e d  c o n c l u s i o n s  o f  Law a t t a c h e d ,  wi 

c e r t i f i c a t e  o f  s e r v i c e .  ( o r i g i n a l  f i l e d  in  #2371)

F i l i n g  t r u e  c o p y  o f  O rder  o f  the  U n i te d  S t a t e s  C ourt  o f  A p p e a l s  
f o r  the  F i f t h  C i r c u i t  d e n y in g  P e t i t i o n  o f  Mandamus.



4a

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
Fifth Circuit 

Office of the Clerk 

January 27, 1975

Hon. Alexander A. Lawrence
Chief Judge
U.S. District Court
P.0. Box 9029
Savannah, Ga. 31402

Re: No. 75-1209—William English, Jr. vs.
Hon. Alexander A. Lawrence, etc.

Letter o f  Court o f  Appeals C lerk  to  D istrict judge,
January 27, 1975

Dear Judge Lawrence:
The Court has directed me to request that you file a re­
sponse to the petition for writ of mandamus filed herein 
within 21 days. A. copy of the petition is enclosed for your 
convenience.

Sincerely yours,

Edward W. W adsworth, Clerk

By /s /  R ichard E. W indhorst, Jr. 
Richard E. Windhorst, Jr. 

Chief, Judicial Support Division



5a

REW jr/sbl

ce: Mr. Jack Greenberg V 
Mr. Fletcher Farrington 
Mr. R. Jackson B. Smith, Jr. 
Messrs. Charles Edwards 

Malcolm MacClean 
Mr. James Highsaw 
Mr. Stanley Karsman 
Mr. Bernard Portman 
Mr. Edward A. Charron



6a

Court of Appeals Docket Entries

(See Opposite) ESP



s / i

a '
a. $

i n  s  

a  £

in
in

> ■  CN G

in :j 
m o
™  > '  
C M  > S

O
C

.
S

E
C

. CD
o c 
_ j d >

a 'O

• a  
o uj
C L  l L

>

o

d
D

X
<
h

>
O
X
CD

>

C7> 5

t o  h> 
Q CC

j C
S

 V
I 

L
 

R
IG

H
T

S

| 
1

 
S

C
H

O
O

L 
j 

1
 

__
__

__
_

<S) cj 
ID;, 
O n
a n .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
X

CROSS A PPEAL NO. CASE NUM BER

** ra ' tm O  % 1 ^

IC U IT  5 APPEA1______ F R O M  .

1 9 0 7«
M E  D O C K E T E D -----l~AsJJ=JUi3-----

M E  N O T IC E  OF A P P E A L  F I L E D ----- ,

D O C K E T  N U M B E R  j £ A  6 9 1

Southern a t  W a v c r o a s L______________ d is t r ic t  c £ e jo r g s L a _ -----------------------_

$50 FEE  P A I D__1-23-75 ... JU DG E  .Alexander. A , Lawrence ̂

WILLIAM ENGLISH, JR.,

versus
Petitioner,

HON. ALEXANDER A. LAWRENCE, U.S. 
District Judge lor the Southern 
District of Georgia, Waycross Division,

Respondent,

’P E A R A N C E  
L E D —D A T E

A - 75
.. - 4  : ~-B

C O D E

X
A T T O R N E Y S  FOR. A PP E L L A N T

VfMorris J>.EallfiX,.
Jack  G r e e n b e rg , 10 Columbus C i r c l e .  S u i t e  2030 .  New York ..Jie3LAox_k

JLCGJJL

Fletcher Farringhton. 2 OH East 34th Street, SaYa.imi.IU.JlJ>̂ -SlAQl-
Charles Edwards , P. 0 . Box 984 L^Aav-an n ah_,—Ga— ;I1TQ2_A £o F -Sc FdQJFd
Malcolm Mac.l£3lL :d.Q_- C o a s t l i n e )

P E A R A N C E  
L E D —D A T E C O D E

James Highsaw. 1015 18th St. , N.W. , Washington,,— D^C ■ 2Q036_JToiUnion d e f . )

Stanley Karsman, ill . W. Congress St., S avannah,̂ .GfL_ 3M(Djl 1 or^Unlgal
Bernard Port man, 302 E. Liberty St. , Savannah,_Ga . 314 01 (o t. If e_ j_ c m p T< rye
___a m, „ „ 5nn ur*» + «r> <j+- inpifcnnui lip Fla. 32202 (SeaboardEdward A. Charron, 500 Water St., Jacksonville, Fla. 32202^Soaboardj

A T T O R N E Y S  FOR  A P P E L L E E

Alexander a. Lawrence. Chief Judge, P,0. BQX_902g^Say.annalL^JGLa. 
"---------------------------- -----“  ~ ' 3 1 4 Q2____

R . Jackson B . Smith f Jr . . U-JL.At_tx^ALO.-A3ox-2017_TAUig.us.ta-,.G/U--2Q:i-7- I

I I

L L L 1 t 7 - U 4



Il
M O T IO N S

q Motion to or for: Response Filed By ' Date Granted Denied
By

DateCourt Cierk

1 - 2 3 - 7 S - f t f M 1 7 ^ 2 7  , - -  j 7 7 T i / " SrJZ'.'/J'irfL
XC-Sr’ O

........ ........ 1 GavH to Appeal 1F P ...

........ ......  Withdraw as Counsel

.........- - Appointment of Counsel .

...... Leave to File Typed Brief ... .

leave to File Brief in Excess Pas. . ........

.. D u  miss by Appellee - - - - - -.......

....  - Amicus Curiae ....  ...........

___ ______  Leave to File Supp. Brief........

.................... Stay of Mandate

Recall of Mandate

O T H E R  D O C K E T  E N T R I E S  / '  ,
/• ~  /• ~/!7 (  )

C O D E  T O  E N T R I E S

/12.7./7.5.'___ J F lg ^ _ m o ± j L f in _  o f __S e a h o s s.r.d  . C o a s t .  L i n e . . .

t  i  o n _  J i o  r _  s r J o t __r

3.r  h QQ<i_Q f  R a l l s
R ra  i  k r n a t  i  t  i  o s

R n i 1 r o n d A R G  — Argued

CE — C lerk’s Endorsement

E — East Courtroom
C o .  t o  d  1 s m i  s s  p o t : i iJ L . m a n . d a m u  h... 

s a y  a n d7 2 7 / 7 5  ... F i g ,  m o t i o n  o f  B r o t h *

A i r l i n e  C l f ^ r k K  t o  d i  f o r  w r i t
EB — En Banc Courtroom

o f  m a n d a m u s . I F — Flat

Handwritten

— Sent to Judges

— Large

— Mimeo or Offset

— Printed

— Preliminary Type

— Small

— See Section 9 

tb — Submitted

— T yped

— West Courtroom

t / 2 7 / 7 5 I s s e r .  c e r t i f i e d  c o p y  o f  m a n d a m u s  d e n i e d  o r d e r H

t o  C l e r k J

L

M

P

PI

S

S£

S i

T

W

J U D G M E N T  O R  M A N D A T E  I N F O R M A T I O N 11. S U P R E M E  C O U R T  I N F O R M A T I O N  No.

Jill of Costs 

Fig. & Entg. Judgment 

ssg. Copy of Jdgt. to Bd & Cnsl. 

Jdgt. as Mdt. tssd. to Clerk 

Jdgt. as Mdt. Reissd. to Clerk 

Dismissal Issc!. to Clerk 

Record on Appeal Retd, to Clerk 

Exhibits Retd, to Clerk

Proceedings on Certiorari 

Supp. Proceedings on Cert, 

ina Oria. Exhibits to S.C.Transmit

Order of S.C. -  Ex 

Fia. of C
t. t o ......................................... ...... ....

ert. Pet. on .. ...........  .... .

..................... _ ... Notice of Denial of Pet. for Rehearina .

)f S.C. da 

of s  n

ted .



8a

November 9, 1973

P la in tiff ’ s Letter to D istrict Judge,
N ovem ber 9, 1973

Honorable Alexander A. Lawrence 
Chief Judge, United States District Court 
Wright Square Post Office Building 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

Be: English v. Seahoarcl Coast Line Railroad Co.,
No. 691 (Wayeross Division)

Dear Judge Lawrence:
We are in receipt of Charles Edwards’ letter to the Court, 

dated October 24, 1973, regarding the Williams v. Albe­
marle City Board of Education case. We would strongly 
dispute the Company’s assertion that this Court should 
follow that decision in this case.

The so-called promotion that Seaboard argues English 
should have taken would, according to the testimony, have 
given him only a token raise in pay. That salaried job also 
paid substantially less than the Group I position, in Way- 
cross to which plaintiff was and is entitled. English would 
have been forced to leave his home (which he owns fully) 
and meet the much higher cost of living in Jacksonville 
(including the expenses, obviously greater, of habitations 
in Jacksonville). English would also have been forced to 
leave his second (part-time) job as chief administrator of 
a Waycross head-start program. Therefore, the “promo­
tion” involved would not have “entailed economic gain to 
him” but would have been very costly; indeed, that is why 
Mr. English turned it down, as he testified.



The Williams case implies a very harsh and ungenerous 
rule on mitigation of damages in employment discrimina­
tion cases. It is inequitable, and it is certainly not the law 
in the Fifth Circuit. We are confident that the Court will 
not reach such a result by means of the dubious and narrow 
reasons that moved the panel in Williams.

In any event, the issue is not ripe for resolution at this 
.stage. The mitigation question is obviously part of the 
second-stage proceeding's, not part of the determination of 
liability. There are other mitigation issues to be explored 
at that time, in light of the still-developing law in this area.
See, e.g., Bing v. Roadway Express, In c.,------F.2d ——
(5th Cir. No. 72-2565, October 15,1973). For the time being, 
the questions raised by Seaboard need not and should not 
be finally resolved.

Since, as Mr. Edwards points out, substantial time has 
passed since the filing of post-trial briefs, we also take the 
occasion to note for the Court recent developments in the 
law. We enclose a copy of the Sixth Circuit’s decision in 
Head v. Tim-kin Roller Bearing Co., No. 72-1994 (October 
12, 1973). In this case, the Sixth Circuit adopts a strong 
rule on class back pay consistent with that of the Fourth 
Circuit in Moody v. Albemarle Paper Co., which we have 
previously cited and briefed.

We are hopeful that the Court will proceed in the near 
future to enter a decision in this 1969-filed case. We note 
that, even if plaintiff prevails on the back pay issue, a 
second-stage hearing will be required before plaintiffs can 
obtain full relief in district court. Since plaintiff’s road

P la in tiff ’ s L e t t e r  to  D is tr ic t  J u d ge,
N o v em b er  9, 1973



10a

is such a long one, we are sure that the Court will under­
stand his eagerness to move along it.

Respectfully yours,

/ s /  Morris J. Baiter 
Morris J. Bailer

P la in tiff ’ s L e t t e r  to  D is tr ic t  J u d ge,
N o v em b er  9, 1973

M JB/gr

cc: Charles Edwards, Esq.
Stanley M. Karsman, Esq. 
James L. Highsaw, Esq. 
Bernard M. Portman, Esq.



11a

P la in tiff ’ s Letter to D istrict Judge,
February 6, 1974

February 6, 1974

Honorable Alexander A. Lawrence 
Chief Judge, United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Georgia 
United States District Court House 

Wright Square 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

R e: English v. Seaboard Coast Line 
Railroad Co., et al.,
No. 691 (Waycross Div.)

Dear Judge Lawrence:

On behalf of plaintiff William English and members of 
his class, I am writing to express our concern that the 
above-styled case has not yet been decided. We fully recog­
nize that Your Honor has an unusually heavy and demand­
ing schedule and that deciding this complex action will 
place a great demand on your time. Nevertheless, we are 
hopeful that a decision will be forthcoming in this action 
which has now been pending over four years, and was 
tried over one year ago. If there are any specific ques­
tions or issues on which clarification or further argument



would be of assistance, we would be eager to respond 
promptly to the Court’s inquiries.

Respectfully yours,

/ s /  Morris J. Baller 
Morris J. Bailer

P la in tiff ’ s L e t t e r  to  D is tr ic t  J u d ge,
F eb ru a r y  6, 1974

MJB/gr

cc: Malcolm Maclean, Esq. 
James L. Highsaw, Esq. 
Stanley M. Karsman, Esq. 
Barnard M. Portman, Esq. 
302 E. Liberty St. 
Savannah, Ga. 31401



13a

In the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Foe the Southern District oe Georgia 
W aycross Division

Civil Action No. 691

P la in tiff ’ s M otion  fo r  Entry o f  Decision
filed  in  D istrict Court, A p r il 11, 1974

W illiam English, Jr.,

v.
Plaintiff,

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, William English, Jr., by his undersigned coun­
sel, respectfully moves that the Court enter a decision in 
the above-styled cause within thirty days. In support of 
this motion, the plaintiff shows the following reasons:

(1) This case was filed in November, 1969 and is more 
than four years old. It was tried in January, 1973 and has 
been fully briefed and ripe for decision since March 3, 
1973.

(2) The civil rights of plaintiffs and a large class of 
black employees are at stake in this litigation. These 
matters involve a significant public interest. The rights 
here at stake cannot be fully vindicated without a prompt 
decision by the Court.



14a

(3) In recognition of the public importance of prompt 
disposition of Title YII cases, Congress amended § 706(F)
(5) in 1972 to provide:

It shall be the duty of the judge designated pur­
suant to this subsection to assign the case for hear­
ing at the earliest practicable date and to cause the 
case to be in every way expedited.

(4) In its review of the interlocutory appeal in this 
case, the Fifth Circuit also expressed the need for a prompt 
prosecution of the case. It noted, 465 F.2d at 48:

We note in conclusion that this case is now over 
two years old and it is still in the pleading stage. 
Without attempting to designate responsibility for 
this delay, we urge all concerned to proceed in good 
faith to bring this litigation to a close.

The Fifth Circuit said this nearly two years ago on Au­
gust 7, 1972.

(5) Other significant civil rights actions are stalemated 
pending a decision in this case. In Coleman v. Seaboard 
Coast Line Railroad Co., et ad. (E.D. Va., No. 173-73-R), 
an order was entered on January 31, 1974 staying further 
proceedings pending decision on the motion to redefine the 
class in the case at bar. The latter motion cannot, of course, 
be decided until entry of a decision on the merits. In addi­
tion, the case of Hayes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad in 
this Court cannot and should not be tried or otherwise dis­
posed of without the benefit of this Court’s decision in 
English. To proceed with Hayes would be extremely waste­
ful of judicial time and the parties’ resources.

P la in tiff ’ s M otion  f o r  E n tr y  o f  D ecis ion
filed in D is tr ic t  C ou rt, A p r il  11, 1974



15a

(6) The plaintiff has previously urged the Court in­
formally to enter a decision in this case in two letter dated 
November 9, 1973 and February 6, 1974. In the absence of 
a decision following those letters, the plaintiff is compelled 
to resort to this motion for entry of a decision.

W herefore, plaintiff respectfully, but urgently, prays 
that the Court enter a decision in his case within thirty 
days.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  Morris J. Baller 
Jack Greenberg 
Morris J. Baller 

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

Fletcher Farrington 
Hills, Jones & Farrington 

208 East 34th St. 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 9 day of April, 1974, I served 
all counsel of record with the foregoing Motion for Entry 
of Decision Within Thirty Days by depositing copies of 
same in the United States Mail, airmail, postage |)repaid.

/ s /  Morris J. Baller 
Attorney for Plaintiff

P la in tiff ’ s M o tio n  f o r  E n tr y  o f  D ecis ion
filed  in  D is tr ic t  C ou rt, A p r il  11, 1974



16a

Excerpt from Plaintiff’s Pleading 
filed May 16, 1974

CONCLUSION

This case is ripe for entry of a decision in plaintiff’s 
favor. It is a clear case. The facts have always been per­
fectly clear; the law has now become perfectly clear. This 
is also an old case. Belief is long past dne. Accordingly, 
plaintiff urgently prays that, after allowing defendants a 
short period in which to reply to his latest submissions, the 
Court enter its decision within thirty (80) days.

Respectfully submitted,

Hill, Jones and Farrington
208 East Thirty-Fourth Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

B y : Fletcher Farrington 
Fletcher Farrington

Jack Greenberg
Morris J. Baller 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiff



17a

Excerpt from Plaintiff’s Pleading 
filed May 16, 1974

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this day served counsel for 
all parties in the foregoing matter with a copy of this plead­
ing by depositing in the United States Mail a copy of same 
in a properly addressed envelope with adequate postage 
thereon.

This 15th day of May, 1974.

/s /  Fletcher Farrington 
Attorney for Plaintiff



18 a

P la in tiff ’ s Letter to C h ief Judge Brown,
August 22, 1974

August 22, 1974

Honorable John R. Brown, Chief Judge 
"United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130

Dear Judge Brown:

R e: English v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co.,
No. 691 (S.D. Ga., Waycross Division)

I write to you on behalf of the plaintiff in the above-styled 
action, both in your capacity as Chief Judge of the Circuit 
and as Presiding Judge of the panel that decided this case 
on appeal, 465 F.2d 43 (August, 1972). My concern is the 
pendency of this action over a long period of time prior 
to its resolution.
A brief chronology of this Title VII class-action case will 
set this letter in perspective. The underlying EEOC charge 
was filed in February, 1968. The action was filed in Novem­
ber, 1969. An interlocutory appeal was taken and decided 
on August 7, 1972 by a panel over which you presided. 
In that appeal, the decision concludes by noting that “ . . . 
this case is now over two years old and it is still in the 
pleading stage. Without attempting to designate responsi­
bility for this delay, we urge all concerned to proceed in 
good faith to bring this litigation to a close.” On remand, 
the case was tried for six days beginning January 11, 1973.



19a

The final post-trial brief was filed on March 1, 1973. The 
case has not yet been decided.
On November 9, 1973, plaintiff’s counsel wrote to the Dis­
trict Court expressing their hope for entry of a decision. 
On February 6, 1974, counsel again wrote urging a prompt 
disposition of the case. Receiving no answer, plaintiff filed 
on April 11, 1974 a “Motion for Entry of Decision Within 
Thirty Days.” On May 6, 1974, plaintiff filed further post­
trial pleadings noting and discussing recent Fifth Circuit 
Title VII decisions pertinent to English. In concluding 
these pleadings, plaintiff again prayed that the Court enter 
its decision within thirty days after the filing of responsive 
pleadings by defendants. Defendant SCL filed a respon­
sive pleading on May 30, 1974. Other defendants did not 
respond.
No decision has yet been entered.
Two other Title VII class action cases are stayed until, or 
otherwise awaiting, the decision in English. Hayes v. Sea­
board Coast Line R. Co., No. 2371 (S.D. Ga.) has been par­
tially consolidated with English for the purpose of “ second 
stage” proceedings. All proceedings in Coleman v. Sea­
board Coast Line R. Co., No. 173-73-R (E.D. Va.) have been 
stayed since January 31, 1974 pending decision on the class 
action in English. Thus, in addition to the civil rights of 
the 100-odd members of the English class, the determina­
tion of the rights of hundreds of other persons depends on 
obtaining a decision in English.

We recognize the unusually large caseload of the District 
Court for the Southern District of Georgia and also recog­
nize the additional administrative burdens imposed on

P la in tiff” s L e t t e r  to C h ie f  J u d g e B row n ,
A u g u s t  22, 1974



20a

Judge Lawrence as Chief Judge of that district. We do not 
by this letter suggest that Judge Lawrence is other than 
a hard working and conscientious judge. Nevertheless, we 
are compelled by the absence of a decision to seek your as­
sistance in enabling Judge Lawrence to address himself 
to the English matter.

We suggest that it would be appropriate for your Honor, 
as chief administrative officer of the Circuit, to make such 
arrangements as might assist Judge Lawrence with his 
heavy workload in order that he can dispose of this very 
old case.
Any assistance that you can render will be greatly ap­
preciated.

P la in tiff” s L e t t e r  to C h ie f J u d g e B row n ,
A u g u s t  22, 1974

Yours ven^ truly, 

Jack Greenberg

nm
cc Hon. Alexander A. Lawrence 

Malcolm Maclean, Esq. 
Stanley M. Karsman, Esq. 
Barnard Portman, Esq. 
Fletcher Farrington, Esq.

be William English, Jr.



21a

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

F ifth Circuit

Letter o f  C h ie f Judge Brown to P la in tiff ’ s Counsel,
Septem ber 11, 1974

Johh R. Brown
CHIEF JUDGE

Houston, Texas 77002

September 11, 1974

Jack Greenberg, Esquire
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

English v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co.

Dear Mr. Greenberg:
Following your letter I have made inquiry, and I am 

satisfied now that with the tremendous caseload facing 
Judge Lawrence in the Southern District of Georgia, in­
cluding many having statutory priority, he is doing the 
best that is possible.

I am sure that he mil get this case out just as soon as he 
can and understands fully the need for a decision at the 
earliest possible time.

Sincerely yours,

/s /  John R. Brown

JRB :sm
cc: Hon. Alexander A. Lawrence



22a

Lawrence, Ch. J .: After evidence being presented it 
is ordered that: (1) Local Lodge No. 5 and Local Lodge No. 
1586 will immediately surrender the charters of their re­
spective local lodges to the Grand Lodge and the Grand 
Lodge will issue a new charter to the combined lodge.

(2) That all assets and liabilities of Lodges 5 and 1586 
shall be transferred to the consolidated lodge to be used 
for the general purposes of the lodge except that no funds 
will be expended for attorneys’ fees in this cause of action 
until further order of the Court.

(3) That the officers of the merged lodge for term end­
ing December 31, 1974, will be as follows: The current 
President of Lodge No. 5 wTill be the President of the com­
bined lodge. The current Vice-president of Lodge No. 1586 
will be the Vice-president of the combined lodge. The cur­
rent Secretary-Treasurer of Lodge No. 5 will be the Finan­
cial Secretary-Treasurer of the combined lodge. The cur­
rent Recording Secretary of Lodge No. 1586 will be the 
Recording Secretary of the combined lodge. The current 
Legislative Representative of Lodge No. 5 will be the Legis­
lative Representative of the combined lodge. The current 
Chairman of the Protective Committee of Lodge No. 5 will 
be the Chairman of the Protective Committee of the merged 
lodge. The current Chairman of the Protective Committee 
of Lodge No. 1586 will be appointed as Assistant Local 
Chairman of the combined lodge and will for the period set 
forth above retain his membership on System Board No. 
3 with the full rights attached thereto.

(4) That the combined lodge will have sufficient members 
on its Protective Committee to serve the former member­

O rder o f  January 28, 1972



23a

ship of Lodge No. 5 and the former membership of Lodge 
No. 1586.

(5) The present Trustees of Lodge No. 5 and Lodge No. 
1586 will hold a meeting as soon as practical and will de­
cide upon three members for the Board of Trustees of the 
merged lodge. The Trustee from the lodge which only has 
one Trustee chosen for the Board of Trustees of the merged 
lodge will become the Chairman of that Board of Trustees.

(6) The agreement between the officers of Lodge No. 5 
and Lodge No. 1586 as set forth in a letter dated December 
3, 1971, and signed by L. P. Buller will be effectuated.

(7) That the merger and issuance of the new charter 
shall be effective as of January 1, 1972.

O rd er o f  J a n u a ry  2 8 ,1 9 7 2



O rder o f  O ctober 18, 1972

Lawrence, D. J .: The above matter having come before 
the Court upon various motions of the parties, and briefs 
and arguments of counsel having been received and con­
sidered,

It Is Ordered:

1. Defendant Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company’s 
motion for a jury trial of claims pursuant to the 1866 Civil 
Rights Act, 42 U. S. C, § 1981 is denied for the reasons 
stated by Judge Smith in Williams v. Travenol Labora­
tories, Inc., [4 EPD !f 7918] 344 F. Supp. 163 (N. D. Miss. 
1972).

2. On August 17, 1971, I ruled that “the class repre­
sented by plaintiff will include Negro employees of the Sea­
board Coast Line Railroad Company at or near Waycross, 
Georgia, who belong to or are eligible for membership in 
either of the two defendant locals of BRAC, Number 5 and 
Number 1586, by reason of job classification.” 3 EPD 
H 8316 at p. 7071. Plaintiff now seeks to expand the scope 
of this litigation to encompass the entire Waycross Divi­
sion. Defendant SCL in turn asks that the Court confine 
the action to the Stores Department in Waycross. At this 
stage of the proceedings, the Court denies both requests, 
and the prior ruling as to the scope of the case remains in 
effect.

3. Defendant SCL-’s motions to compel plaintiff to de­
scribe in detail his proposed method for computation of 
back pay are denied at this time with the suggestion that 
such information is obtainable through interrogatories to 
obtain plaintiff’s theory.



25a

4. Defendant SCL’s motions to dismiss the class action 
and attorneys’ fees portions of the claim under 42 U. S. C. 
§ 1981 are denied.

5. The joinder of former Transportation-Communica­
tion Employees Union members at or near Way cross hav­
ing been accomplished by amended order dated October 18, 
1972, defendant SCL’s motion directed toward this end is 
moot.

6. Defendant SCL must supplement its answers to plain­
tiff’s first interrogatories by providing the information 
requested therein as to all persons added to the scope of 
this litigation by hiring, transfer or seniority merger since 
the date of service of those interrogatories.

7. Plaintiff’s motions to compel answers to discovery 
are denied as moot.

8. Defendants Dell Beasley, et al. (the “white clerks” ) 
have filed motions to dismiss the compaint for failure to 
state a claim and for lack of personal jurisdiction. This 
Court’s order of September 7, 1971 ordered joinder of these 
employees under Rule 19. 4 EPD 7505. The Fifth Cir­
cuit affirmed this ruling on August 7, 1972, (4 EPD If 7931), 
whereupon I ordered compliance with the mandate of the 
Court of Appeals on September 1, 1972. There is no relief 
sought against these defendants by way of injunctive re­
lief or back pay, inasmuch as they were made parties un­
der Rule 19 and the orders of this Court and the Fifth 
Circuit, and not pursuant to Rule 23(b) or (c). Their mo­
tions are denied.

9. Trial of this case shall be in two stages: The first, to 
commence January 8, 1973 in Savannah, shall deal solely

O rd er  o f  O cto b er  1 8 ,1972



26a

Order of October 18,1972

with the question of discrimination vel non. All questions 
of remedy, injunction, back pay, and attorneys’ fees shall 
be reserved for hearing at a later date, after adequate time 
for preparation by all parties.



27a

Order

Lawrence, C. J .: By the attached agreement dated Janu­
ary 12,1973, BRAC Groups 1 and 2 were merged on a date- 
of-hire basis over the entire SOL system, effective March 
1, 1973. The effect of this agreement is to abolish the dis­
tinction made between Group 1 and Group 2, thereby af­
fording to Group 2 employees, both white and black, the 
opportunity to bid on former Group 1 vacancies on the 
basis of their seniority date established by the first day 
of their present continuous service with the Seaboard Coast 
Line Railroad Company or its predecessor lines.

The memorandum of agreement between SCL and BRAC 
dated January 12, 1973 is hereby adopted by this Court 
and made a part of this order. The parties hereto, their 
officers, agents, employees, servants and all other persons 
and organizations in active concert or participation with 
them, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained 
from engaging in any employment practice or course of 
conduct which interferes with or is contrary to this Order.

Memorandum Agreement 

Between the

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 
And its Employees Represented by

Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, 
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees

January 12, 1973

The parties hereto having reached an understanding to 
abolish separate grouping of the classes of employees rep­

O rder o f  N ovem ber 16, 1973, adopting
M em orandum  Agreem ent o f  January 12, 1973



28a

resented by the organization signatory hereto, effective 
March 1, 1973;

It Is Agreed That:

1. There shall be eliminated all references to Groups 
1 and 2 in the current working agreement of January 1, 
1968, or any currently effective amendments, supplements 
or interpretations thereto.

2. Each employee now holding seniority in Group 1 or 
Group 2 on the effective date of this agreement shall be 
given as his seniority date in the district where he entered 
the employ of the Company or its predecessor companies, 
which is identified as his home district, his last date of 
entry into service on that district on a continuous basis on 
a position covered by the agreement with B. B. A. C. Em­
ployees who have left their home district and have estab­
lished another seniority date in an elective district shall 
not have such seniority disturbed in the elective district.

3. After seniority dates have been established in ac­
cordance with paragraph 2 hereof, the names of all em­
ployees now appearing on separate Group 1 and Group 2 
rosters for each district where there are parallel Group 1 
and 2 rosters shall be dovetailed, on seniority basis, into a 
single roster for each such district. Employees who appear 
on both rosters shall be given the oldest date on the dove­
tailed roster. If, in merging seniority dates, two or more 
employees are found to have the same date they shall be 
placed on the dovetailed roster in the order of their birth 
dates, with the oldest employee shown first.

O rd er  o f  N o v em b er  16, 1973, ad op tin g
M em oran d u m  A g ree m en t  o f  ,January 12, 1973



29a

4. No employee shall, in the operation of this agreement, 
be entitled to displace other employees; however, they shall 
thereafter be entitled to place themselves in accordance 
with the provisions of the current working agreement.

5. Recognizing that the initial issuance of rosters pur­
suant to this agreement may result in disputes about es­
tablished seniority dates, it is agreed that the initial issue 
of rosters shall be open to protest for a period of one 
hundred twenty (120) days from date of posting. If no 
protest is registered within that period, the date shown 
shall be regarded as correct and not subject to further 
protest.

6. All agreements, amendments, supplements, or inter­
pretations in conflict with the provisions of this Memo­
randum Agreement are hereby cancelled insofar as the 
conflicting portions are concerned.

O rd er  o f  N o v em b er  16, 1973, ad op tin g
M em oran d u m  A g ree m en t  o f  J a n u a ry  12, 1973



30a

Order

Lawrence, D. J .: An agreement dated January 12, 1973, 
merging BRAG Groups 1 and 2 over the entire SCL sys­
tem, effective March 1, 1973, was adopted by Order of this 
Court on the 16th day of November, 1973.

The memorandum of agreement referred to above is 
hereby amended pursuant to the terms of a memorandum 
of agreement between SCL and BRAG dated January 30, 
1974, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 
Said agreements as amended are hereby adopted by this 
Court and made a part of this Order. The parties hereto, 
their officers, agents, employees, servants and all other per­
sons and organizations in active concert or participation 
with them, are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained 
from engaging in any employment practice or course of 
conduct which interferes with or is contrary to this Order.

Memorandum Agreement 
Between the

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company 

and

All that Craft or Class of Clerical,
Office, Station and Storehouse Employees 

Rejjresented by the

Brotherhood oe Railway, A irline and Steamship Clerks,
Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees

Rule 13 of the current Clerks’ working agreement, ef­
fective January 1, 1968, is changed, modified and amended 
to read as follows:

O rder o f  January 13, 1974



31a

(A) Employees making application for positions bul­
letined on other seniority districts will, if they possess suf­
ficient fitness and ability, be given preference on a seniority 
basis over non-employees or employees not covered by 
these rules to any vacancy not filled by an employee holding 
seniority in the district where the vacancy occurs.

(B) Employees transferring under this rule will carry 
with them all seniority to the new seniority district and 
their name and date will be dovetailed onto the roster. 
Seniority established in the former seniority district will 
be forfeited and the employee’s name removed from the 
former seniority district roster.

(C) Employees desiring to transfer under this rule will 
do so in writing to the Carrier official responsible for the 
assignment of employees in the seniority district to which 
a transfer is desired, with a copy to the employee’s immedi­
ate supervisor and to the officer issuing the seniority roster 
on which the employee’s name appears. A brief resume of 
the service record must be prepared by the employee and 
accompany the request, such resume to be prepared on form 
supplied by the Carrier, copy of which is attached and made 
a part of this agreement. An employee will be permitted to 
make a request for a specific vacancy, at a specific location, 
or a request general in nature for any vacancy that may 
occur in the seniority district to which transfer is desired. 
Those employees filing an application for transfer prior to 
time a vacancy is bulletined shall be given preference over 
those who file for a transfer during or after the vacancy is 
bulletined. Where an employee has made a specific or gen­
eral request for a vacancy, such request will expire on the 
following December 31st, or upon the employee’s failure 
to accept a position as the senior qualified applicant. Writ­
ten notification must be extended to the applicant within

O rd er  o f  J a n u a ry  13, 1974



32a

five (5) calendar days of the close of the bulletin period, 
and acceptance or rejection shall be signified in writing, 
within five (5) calendar days from the date of notification. 
An employee whose request for transfer has expired may 
renew same at any time.

(D) The provisions of Rule 12 of the current working 
agreement shall be applicable to an employee transferring 
from one seniority district to another. However, where an 
employee is disqualified on the position to which trans­
ferred in the new seniority district, fall-back rights are con­
templated and such employee may elect to have seniority 
restored on former district roster by filing notice of such 
election in writing with Carrier official issuing the seniority 
roster, with copy to the General Chairman, within five (5) 
calendar days from the date of disqualification. If such an 
election is not filed within said period, the employee shall 
retain seniority on the district to which transferred.

(E) All employees who transferred from one seniority 
district to another prior to the effective date of this amend­
ment shall not have disturbed their seniority as now held; 
however, any employee desiring to have the earliest district 
seniority transferred to the district where currently em­
ployed may elect to do so by filing such election in writing, 
within thirty (30) calendar days from the effective date of 
this agreement, with Carrier officials issuing the involved 
seniority rosters, with copy to the General Chairman. An 
employee not making such election will use seniority as 
shown on roster where currently employed for bidding, 
displacement and transfer purposes, except where an em­
ployee is returning from an elective district to the em­
ployee’s former district, whereupon seniority in the elec­
tive district will be forfeited.

O rd er  o f  J an u ary  13, .1974



33a

(F) An employee who fails for any reason to utilize the 
provisions of Paragraph (E) hereof within the time speci­
fied therein, because of absence due to being on vacation, 
leave of absence, furloughed or occupying excepted or of­
ficial position, shall be permitted to exercise the option set 
forth in (E) above, within the thirty (30) calendar day 
period immediately following return to service on a posi­
tion under the provisions of this agreement,

(G) No employee shall, in the operation of this agree­
ment, be entitled to displace other employees; however, 
they shall thereafter be entitled to place themselves in 
accordance with the provisions of the current working 
agreement.

(H) Any employee who prior to this agreement was not 
required to change seniority districts or residence to main­
tain protective benefits will not be required to do so by 
operation of this agreement.

(I) Revised seniority rosters necessitated by the ap­
plication of this amendment shall be issued as soon as pos­
sible after the expiration of the thirty (30) calendar day 
period provided in Paragraph (E) hereof and, if issued 
prior to July 1, 1974, shall be regarded as meeting the re­
quirements of Paragraph 5(a) of the current working 
agreement, except that such rosters shall be open to pro­
test for a period of 120 calendar days from the date of 
posting. If no protest is registered within that period, the 
date shown shall be regarded as correct and not subject 
to further protest.

(J) A copy of this agreement shall be posted on all 
bulletin boards and placed in bulletin books at all locations 
where bulletins for clerical positions are ordinarily and

O rd er  o f  J an u ary  13, 1974



34a

customarily displayed for a period of not less than sixty 
(60) calendar days from the effective, date of this agree­
ment.

(K) All agreements, amendments, supplements, or in­
terpretations in conflict with the provisions of this Memo­
randum Agreement are hereby canceled insofar as the 
conflicting portions are concerned.

The changes in the existing collective bargaining agree­
ment set forth above shall become effective March 1, 1974, 
or ten (10) calendar days from the date (whichever comes 
later) the Honorable Judge Lawrence approves this modi­
fication in the seniority system.

O rd er  o f  J a n u a ry  13, 1974



35a

Order of District Court in H ayes v. Seaboard Coast 
Line Railroad C o., S.D. Ga., Savannah Div., No, 2371  

(March 22 , 1974)

Lorenzo Hayes et al., Plaintiffs v. Seaboard Coast Line 
Railroad Company et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, Southern District of 
Georgia, Savannah Division. No. 2371. March 22, 1974.

Order

Lawrence, C. J .: The above action having come before 
the Court upon motions of Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 
Company, and briefs and arguments of counsel having been 
received and considered, it is

Ordered, that this action be and hereby is consolidated 
with the pending action in the Way cross Division of this 
Court styled as “ William English, Jr. v. Seaboard Coast 
Line Railroad Company, et al., Civil Action No. 691,” for 
trial in the second stage of that case; and it is

Further Ordered that, as this Court has previously 
ruled, all allegations with respect to the seniority or em­
ployment status of former Savannah Union Station Com­
pany employees shall be dealt with at such trial.



MEILEN PRESS IN C  —  N. Y. C. 210