Rosario v Griffin Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

    No. 17,498

7k ~k̂

I n the

luiteft States (Enitrt nf Appeals
F oe the Sixth  Circuit

Mbs. E lvira S. R olfe and Mbs. Bernice L. P eebles,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
v.

County B oard oe E ducation of L incoln County, 
T ennessee, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

APPEAL from the united states district court for the 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, WINCHESTER DIVISION.

BRIEF AND APPENDIX FOR 
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
M ichael J. H enry

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019

A von N. W illiams, Jr.
Z. A lexander L ooby

McClellan-Looby Building 
Charlotte at Fourth 
Nashville, Tennessee

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees



Counter-Statement of Questions Involved 

L

Was the trial court justified in concluding that Negro 
faculty members were wrongfully discharged because of 
race, when they had been assigned to an all-Negro school 
on the basis of race and were discharged in consequence 
of an enrollment loss at that school resulting from the im­
plementation of a plan of desegregation, without compari­
son to other faculty members in the system f

The District Court answered this question “Yes” and 
Appellees agree that it should have been answered “Yes.”

H.

Was the trial court within its allowable discretion in 
granting final relief after a hearing on a motion for pre­
liminary injunction, where the defendant later offered no 
new or different defenses which were not fully litigated 
at the initial hearing?

The District Court answered this question “Yes” and 
Appellees agree that it should have been answered “Yes.”

III.

Was the trial court justified in concluding that the 
defendant board of education had not demonstrated that 
wrongfully discharged Negro faculty members failed to 
use reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages?

The District Court answered this question “Yes” and 
Appellees agree that it should have been answered “Yes.”



I Y .

Was the trial court within its allowable discretion in 
awarding nominal attorneys’ fees to Negro faculty mem­
bers who had been discharged because of race, where there 
had been a long history of discriminatory conduct on the 
part of the board of education, and the bringing of the 
action should have been unnecessary!

The District Court answered this question “Yes” and 
Appellees agree that it should have been answered “Yes.”



I N D E X

BRIEF
PAGE

Counter-Statement of Questions Involved.............Prefaced
Counter-Statement of Facts.............................................  1

A. The Issue of Discrimination ..................   2
B. The Issue of Damages .......................................  7

Argument ...........................................................................  10

Belief ................................................................................... 24

Table oe Cases:

Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559 (1953) .......................... 16

Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County, Virginia,
321 F.2d 494 (4th Cir., 1963) .....................................  23

Bradley v. School Board of the City of Bichmond, 382 
U.S. 103 (1965) ............................................................ 14,17

Bradley v. School Board of the City of Bichmond, 345 
F.2d 310 (4th Cir., 1965) ........................................... 14,23

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) ....15,17

Chambers v. Hendersonville City Board of Education,
364 F.2d 189 (4th Cir., 1966) ..................................... 14, 22

Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm’n v. Continental 
Air Lines, Inc., 372 U.S. 714 (1963) .......................... 17

Eubanks v. Louisiana, 356 U.S. 584 (1958) .................... 16

Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County, 360 
F.2d 325 (4th Cir., 1966) ............................... 13,15,17, 22



11

PAGE

International Correspondence School v. Crabtree, 162 
Tenn. 70, 34 S.W.2d 447 (1931) .................................  22

Johnson v. Branch, 364 F.2d 177 (4th Cir., 1966) .......15,22

Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Jack- 
son, Tenn., 244 F. Supp. 353 (D.C.W.D., Tenn., 
1965) ................................................................................ 23

News Publishing Co. v. Burger, 2 Tenn. Civ. App. 179
(1911) .............................................................................. 22

Norris v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935) .............. __.......  16

Reece v. Georgia, 350 U.S. 85 (1955) .............................. 16
Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198 (1965) ................................ 17
Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 186 F.2d 473 (4th 

Cir., 1951) ............................................   23

Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton School Dis­
trict No. 32, 365 F.2d 771 (8th Cir., 1966) ................  16

Smith v. Hampton Training School for Nurses, 360
F.2d 577 (4th Cir., 1966) .............................................  22

State ex rel Anderson v. Brand, 303 U.S. 95 (1938) .... 14

Todd v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Steel 
Workers of Chicago, 223 F. Supp. 12 (N.D. 111., 
1963) .............   14

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) 17
Wheeler v. Durham City Board of Education, 346 F.2d

768 (4th Cir., 1965) ......................................................  15
Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952) ................ 14,17



Ill

APPENDIX

PAGE

A ppendix A—

Excerpts from Minutes of Lincoln County Board 
of Education Pertaining to School Desegregation 
Since 1954 (Exhibit 3) ............................................. lb

A ppendix B—
Lincoln County Department of Education—Boster 
of Teachers 1965-66 (Exhibit 5) .............................  6b

A ppendix C—■

Central Hig-h School:

Negroes Enrolled—Entrance Dates (Exhibit 13) .. 22b 

A ppendix D—

Letter of Discharge—Mrs. Bernice Peebles (Ex­
hibit 11) ...................................................................... 24b

A ppendix E—
Teachers and Students by Race in Each School— 
Lincoln County, Tenn. (Exhibit 7) ........................  25b

A ppendix F —

Interim Earnings—Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe (Exhibit 
19) ...............................................................................  26b

A ppendix G—

Attempts to Secure Employment—Mrs. Bernice L. 
Peebles (Exhibits 17, 20-22) .................................... 27b



In The

Intteii States Court of Appeals
F oe the Sixth Circuit

Mrs. E lvira S. R olfe and Mrs. B ernice L. Peebles,

v.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

County B oard oe E ducation oe L incoln County, 
T ennessee, et al.,

Defendants-Appellants.

a p p e a l  f r o m  t h e  u n it e d  s t a t e s  d is t r ic t  c o u r t  for  t h e

EASTERN DISTRICT OE TENNESSEE, WINCHESTER DIVISION.

BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

Counter-Statement of Facts

This is an action brought by Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe and 
Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles, on behalf of themselves and all 
other persons similarly situated, against the County Board 
of Education of Lincoln County, Tennessee, seeking relief 
against the board’s policy and practice of discriminatory 
discharges of Negro teachers.

Although the initial hearing in the case formally con­
cerned a motion for temporary restraining order and/or 
preliminary injunction, the issues raised by the original 
complaint in the case and the motion for temporary re­
straining order and/or preliminary injunction were iden­
tical (7a-22a). Also, defendants-appellants did not raise



2

any new issues in their answer filed after the initial hear­
ing (122a-127a), which were not raised either in their an­
swer to the motion for temporary restraining order and/or 
preliminary injunction and response to show cause order 
(23a-26a) or in the hearing on that motion (26a-107a). At 
the conclusion of the hearing on the motion, the Court 
asked both parties the following question:

Having heard the proof, do you think the Court now 
has the full picture or are we going to have or need to 
have an additional trial? In other words, can the evi­
dence the Court has now received be the evidence on 
trial? (106a-107a).

Defendant-appellants indicated by their silence at that time 
that there was no other evidence which they felt should be 
heard on the issues in the case, which had not been brought 
out in that hearing (107a). As indicated by defendants- 
appellants’ own Statement of Facts based on the evidence 
heard at the preliminary hearing on the motion, all of the 
evidence which could be relevant to the primary issue of 
whether plaintiffs-appellees were discharged because of 
their race was brought out at that hearing. Thus, it is 
inaccurate to suggest that a “ full evidentiary hearing on 
the issue of fact” was not held before the Court’s deter­
mination of that issue of fact. In its decision, the District 
Court concluded that “the questions involved have now 
been briefed well by counsel for the contesting parties and 
have been carefully reviewed by the Court” (128a).

A. The Issue of Discrimination

On the merits of the case, the District Court found that 
“until the school year 1965-1966, Lincoln County public 
schools were operated under a compulsory bi-racial system 
in open defiance of the law for nearly a decade” (130a).



3

Referring to the minutes of the Board of Education con­
cerning school desegregation (Collective Exhibit 3—re­
printed infra, lb-5b), the Court noted that:

Despite urgings for appropriate action in the mean­
time, there appears to have been no further discus­
sion of desegregation until August 3, 1964; and, as late 
as January, 1965, the Board members were still un­
able to agree on a plan. The plan was eventually re­
arranged in the latter part of April, 1965 to the satis­
faction of the Board members and was formally 
adopted on May 10, 1965. . . .

It was only when faced with the loss of $136,232.72 
in federal aid funds, receipt of which was contingent 
on compliance with the Civil Rights Law, that the 
defendants adopted a plan of desegregation (130a- 
131a).

The evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that 
while the Board adopted a desegregation plan (108a-122a) 
on May 10, 1965, in order to comply with H.E.W. Guide­
lines, the actual intention for the 1965-66 school year was 
to continue complete faculty segregation at all-Negro West 
End High School and at predominantly white Central High 
School, as stated by the superintendent of the school sys­
tem, Everett C. Norman (lOOa-lOla). Mr. Norman also ad­
mitted that the continuation of faculty segregation could 
discourage Negro students from exercising their choices 
under a freedom of choice plan to achieve student desegre­
gation since they would he jeopardizing the jobs of their 
former teachers (98a).

After the plan for desegregation was adopted in the 
spring of 1965, Superintendent Norman appeared before 
the Negro teachers at West End High School in response 
to their inquiries about the effects of the desegregation



4

plan on the faculty. He said at that time that “West End 
would he the only school that would be hurt” (34a, 53a). 
The Superintendent admitted that he knew that the gen­
eral experience has been that no white children transferred 
into formerly Negro schools under a freedom of choice 
plan (88a). He also admitted that the physical facilities 
at West End High School were inferior to those at Central, 
and that West End was such a small school as to be educa­
tionally inefficient under state standards, so that other 
students could not he expected to elect to attend West 
End voluntarily (88a-89a). [West End was closed com­
pletely the following year (221a).] The Superintendent 
also indicated that in the spring of 1965, a general enroll­
ment loss composed predominantly of white students was 
anticipated for the following fall in Lincoln County and 
for that reason fewer new teachers were employed that 
summer for the following year than would otherwise have 
been (99a).

However, fourteen (14) new teachers were employed for 
the 1965-1966 year, all of whom were white (6b-21b). All 
the new teachers were hired in the spring or summer of 
1965. However, the practice of the Board of Education is 
not to actually sign contracts with teachers until the first 
pay check is given in the new school year, which is gen­
erally two weeks after school begins (85a, 173a-174a). 
[This was the point at which plaintiffs-appellees were 
notified of their discharge, and were, in fact, discharged.]

Almost all of the enrollment loss which occurred at West 
End High School was known to the Superintendent and 
the Board on the first day of the new school year (August 
23, 1965), since 31 former students at West End registered 
on that date at Central High School and the boards of 
education of the surrounding counties which had been send­
ing Negro students to Lincoln County schools notified the



Lincoln County school system on that date that they would 
no longer be doing so, since they were integrating then- 
own system (81a, 22b-23b).

After the substantial enrollment loss at West End be­
came clearly apparent, no comparisons were made of the 
qualifications of the now excess Negro teachers at West 
End, who had previously been employed by the school sys­
tem, with those of the new white teachers, or with any 
other teachers (86a). This was in spite of the fact that the 
general policy of the Board upon hiring teachers is to com­
pare their qualifications with those of all other teachers in 
the system rather than just those in one school (94a), and 
that teachers are employed by the school system for the 
entire system and not for a particular school (93a).

Based on the evidence brought out at the hearing, the 
District Court found on the issue of the foreseeability of 
the enrollment changes, that back in the spring of 1965, 
“the defendant Mr. Norman and the defendant Board mem­
bers were so acutely attuned to the situation that they 
were able to anticipate a considerable decrease in enroll­
ment system-wide” (131a). The District Court then found 
that as soon as the desegregation plan was approved by 
H.E.W.,

one week afterward, on September 7, 1965, the de­
fendant Board convened in regular monthly session, 
and “ * * * reviewed the whole integration problem, 
and then it proceeded to take the necessary steps to 
correct its teaching load to the amount [sic: number] 
of positions it had. * # * ” There were transfers from 
one school to another and from one position to another. 
No teacher of the Caucasian race was discharged; of 
the non-tenure Negro teachers in the system, only one 
remained when the Board completed the taking of 
“ * * * the necessary steps to correct its teaching 
load * * * ” . Four members of the all-Negro faculty



6

at West End were discharged, effective at the end of 
the following school day.

Although the defendants contend that teachers are 
elected for employment within the system, as opposed 
to a particular school, and, although the defendant 
Board had provided in its plan of May 10, 1965 that 
all teachers would be integrated at the beginning of 
the 1965-1966 school year, only members of the West 
End faculty were considered for readjustments or dis­
charge, and the only comparison of the effectiveness 
of the respective teachers in the system was the com­
parison of each West End teacher with other West 
End teachers.

Considering all non-tenure teachers in the system as 
“new applicants” for employment each year, and hav­
ing flaunted its own plan by assigning only Negro 
teachers to West End School, and in considering only 
the comparative qualifications of members of the West 
End faculty, obviously, the Board limited its candi­
dates for termination of employment to the non-tenure 
Negro teachers at West End (133a-134a).

The District Court noted the substantial teaching ex­
perience and commendable records of both of the teachers 
who are plaintiffs-appellees in this case (132a, 134a-135a), 
and concluded that

it is inconceivable to the Court that, had the de­
fendants established definite objective standards for 
the retention of its teachers and applied those stan­
dards to all its teachers alike, without distinction as 
to race, that either of these plaintiffs would have suf­
fered the loss of her employment. . . .

The professional among the defendants, Mr. Nor­
man, concedes that these plaintiffs were well-qualified. 
Had this not been true, there could have been no jus­



7

tification for their employment and continued re­
employment to teach Negro children. But there were 
no standards. Except for the protection afforded the 
teachers who had attained tenure status under Ten­
nessee law, the flexibility was so great that these teach­
ers could be hired or fired to accommodate the vacil­
lating whims of a majority of the defendant Board 
(137a-138a).

# *
. . . the Court is also struck with the impact of the 
lack of good faith exhibited by the defendants in the 
purported implementation of its plan [of desegrega­
tion]. It is reasonable to infer that the defendants 
would have continued, in the absence of litigation, to 
defy the unambiguous mandate of the law had the 
Congress not employed the device of economic sanc­
tions to inspire obedience; that the plan eventually 
adopted was the minimum which would qualify the 
defendants for federal funds; that the bi-parte type of 
plan had as its purpose the postponement of assigning 
Negro teachers to Central High School; and, that the 
plan continued to be the subject of debate until some 
ingenious method could be devised to penalize the 
Negroes of Lincoln County, locally prominent, through 
members of their race who are in the teaching profes­
sion, for becoming the beneficiaries of a program of 
equalizing the citizenship in this manner (136a).

B. The Issue of Damages

One of the plaintiffs-appellees, Mrs. Peebles, was certi­
fied to teach high school mathematics. A new white teacher 
was employed by the school system to teach high school 
mathematics during the summer of 1965 shortly before 
Mrs. Peebles was discharged in September, 1965 (77a, 84a- 
85a). Subsequent to her discharge, Mrs. Peebles received 
a telephone call from an employee of Superintendent Nor­



8

man who said that there was a “possibility” of a job open­
ing up, but not that there was actually a position available 
at that time (60a). The Superintendent had previously 
told Mrs. Peebles that he would contact her when he had 
an opening for which she was qualified (61a, 188a). The 
nature of the position which in fact eventually developed, 
and of which Mrs. Peebles was not notified, was that of a 
“visiting teacher,” which is a position more in the nature 
of social work than teaching (188a). It did not involve 
actual classroom teaching (197a, 220a). Mrs. Peebles later 
moved to Huntsville, Alabama, and applied to several dif­
ferent schools, and then to several space/defense plants, 
which might have utilized her abilities in mathematics, but 
was unsuccessful in obtaining employment (61a-62a).

The other plaintiff-appellee, Mrs. Eolfe, held a high 
school science teacher’s certificate, as well as an elementary 
certificate. There were elementary positions available for 
which she could have been considered previous to and at 
the time of her discharge (78a). She had brought her 
elementary teaching qualifications to the attention of Su­
perintendent Norman in the spring of 1965 because she had 
thought that due to integration there would be some rear­
ranging of faculty, and had been told by him to place the 
certificate on file with the appropriate clerk in the Board 
of Education office, which she did (102a-104a). The Super­
intendent said, however, that he did not remember this 
event occurring and was unaware of her elementary quali­
fication when she was discharged in September (78a). Al­
though Mrs. Rolfe stated in response to the question “Did 
you ever apply for a position teaching in elementary schools 
in Lincoln County” on cross-examination that she did not 
(45a), the bringing to the attention of the Superintendent 
of her elementary certificate could have constituted an ap­
plication for same as far as he was concerned. Although 
Miss Louise Maddox, accountant and personnel clerk of



9

the Lincoln County Board of Education, testified that Mrs. 
Rolfe, did not leave her elementary certificate with her 
(199a-200a), she also admitted that she dealt with a very 
large number of records of teachers, that Mrs. Rolfe came 
to the office and took her own records away after her dis­
charge, and that she had no way of knowing, apart from 
her personal recollections of one year previously, as to 
whether there had actually been an elementary certificate 
on file or not (203a-208a). Upon returning home to Nash­
ville after her discharge, Mrs. Rolfe applied to the Board 
of Education there for a teaching position, and to the Head 
Start program, the Study Center, and a hospital, hut was 
unable to secure other than temporary employment as a 
substitute teacher and a hospital attendant (47a-48a). Al­
though each plaintiff-appellee moved out of town, their 
current addresses were always known to the Board of 
Education.

The subsequent hearing in the case, held on August 26, 
1966 was confined to the issue of damages, since the Court 
determined that sufficient evidence had already been in­
troduced on the primary issue of whether the discharges 
were in consequence of racial segregation (128a-139a). Al­
though defendants-appellants made an offer of proof dur­
ing that hearing concerning the primary issue (172a-180a), 
which was refused, virtually all of the elements of that 
offer of proof had previously been introduced in the earlier 
hearing which led to the determination of the primary is­
sue (65a-101a).

The Court was not convinced at the hearing on dam­
ages that any of the evidence put forward by defendants- 
appellants made out a case in mitigation, and therefore 
since the burden of proof in mitigation was on the de­
fendants-appellants, awarded full damages to both plain­
tiff s-appellees (less their interim earnings) (191a, 238a- 
241a).



10

I.
Was the trial court justified in concluding that 

Negro faculty members were wrongfully discharged 
because of race, when they had been assigned to an 
all-Negro school on the basis of race and were dis­
charged in consequence of an enrollment loss at that 
school resulting from the implementation of a plan 
of desegregation, without comparison to other faculty 
members in the system?

The District Court answered this question “ Yes”  
and Appellees agree that it should have been answered 
“ Yes.”

In this case, a board of education which was implement­
ing a Constitutionally required plan of desegregation, uti­
lizing the “freedom of choice” approach, discharged the 
non-tenure Negro teachers at the previously all-Negro 
school upon a substantial drop in enrollment at that school 
—without comparing the qualifications of the discharged 
teachers to other non-tenure teachers in the system, and 
shortly after employing fourteen new white teachers for 
the system. The plan of desegregation was adopted in the 
spring of 1965, under the impetus of a threatened with­
drawal of federal funds under Title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 if such a plan of desegregation was not adopted 
(130a-131a). Under the requirements of Tennessee law, the 
board of education “elects” the teachers it believes will be 
needed in the following year 30 days before the expiration 
of the current school year (134a). When this was done in 
the spring of 1965, the board assigned an all-Negro faculty 
to the all-Negro school (West End) which was to be incor­

A R G U M E N T



11

porated in the plan of desegregation for the following year 
(134a). At approximately this time, the Superintendent 
(Mr. Norman) appeared before the faculty members at 
West End and said that he anticipated that West End 
would be the only school which would be “hurt” by the plan 
of desegregation with regard to faculty positions (134a). 
The Superintendent and the board were so acutely attuned 
to the situation that they were able to anticipate a consider­
able system-wide enrollment decrease the following fall, and 
so employed fewer new teachers at that time than they 
would otherwise have done (131a). They were also aware 
that white students generally do not transfer to previously 
all-Negro schools under “freedom of choice” plans of de­
segregation, so that an enrollment loss could be anticipated 
at West End (88a).

When the substantial enrollment loss actually material­
ized at West End during the first week of the 1965-66 school 
year in August 1965, the non-tenure Negro teachers there 
were discharged, without comparison to the qualifications 
of the other non-tenure teachers in the system, including 
those white teachers with less seniority who had just been 
employed by the system (134a-135a). This w-as in spite of 
the facts that the policy of the school system is to employ 
teachers for the system rather than for a particular school 
(133a), that teachers are compared with all other teachers 
in the system as to effectiveness before they are “re-elected” 
each spring (134a), and that the general practice of the 
system was not to sign contracts with non-tenure teachers 
until two weeks after the school year began (85a, 173a- 
174a).

Plaintiff Mrs. Eolfe had six years’ experience elsewhere 
and two years’ experience in the Lincoln County system, 
and Plaintiff Mrs. Peebles had two years’ experience else­
where and two years’ experience in the Lincoln County 
system (132a). The District Court noted:



12

Mr. Norman conceded that there are non-tennre 
teachers in the elementary schools of Lincoln County 
with less qualifications than those possessed by Mrs. 
Eolfe. Eight such teachers were junior to Mrs. Rolfe 
in point of service with the system. She, however, 
was the junior science instructor in the system. He 
could not compare the qualifications of Mrs. Peebles 
with other mathematics instructors in the system, and 
asserted, despite all the foregoing, that he could not 
foresee the subsequent abolishment of Mrs. Peebles’ 
position at West End when he engaged, less than a 
month earlier, a newcomer to the system to teach solid 
geometry, trigonometry and algebra I at Central High 
School.

The aforementioned “newcomer” soon resigned, and 
the qualifications of Mrs. Peebles were considered 
against those of Mrs. Martha Crawford, a former 
teacher there who had left the system until “a home 
situation cleared up” . The two teachers were com­
pared carefully and at length, and the Board decided 
that Mrs. Crawford’s qualifications “ * # # were a little 
better * * * ” than Mrs. Peebles’. Included in the com­
parison was the fact that Mrs. Crawford had passed 
one course in calculus which Mrs. Peebles had been 
required to repeat several times in college, although 
Central High School has never offered, and does not 
now offer, calculus (134a-135a).

* # #
Both Mrs. Rolfe and Mrs. Peebles had been compli­

mented in their respective work at West End by the 
principal. Neither had ever received any reprimand 
or complaint about their performance of their respec­
tive assignments (135a).



13

After a review of the qualifications of the non-tenure 
teachers in the system, the District Court concluded:

It is inconceivable to the Court that, had the defen­
dants established definite objective standards for the 
retention of its teachers and applied those standards 
to all its teachers alike, without distinction as to race, 
that either of these plaintiffs would have suffered the 
loss of her employment. The Court does not insist 
that seniority should be the determining factor in de­
ciding who shall go and who shall remain, but in the 
ordinary habits of life, the Court does believe that, 
had two persons been equated on the same standards, 
the more junior is the more likely to leave (137a-138a). 

* * *
The defendants admit, in part, their bad faith, i.e., 

they promulgated a plan providing for the immediate 
integration of their faculties when it was their stated 
purpose to maintain segregated faculties in the two 
principal schools in Fayetteville. They failed to es­
tablish definite objective standards for the employment 
and retention of teachers for application to all teachers 
alike; instead, they designed a pattern which could 
only result in discrimination against Negro teachers 
(136a-137a).

The District Court’s decision is clearly in accord with the 
now unarguable proposition that Negro faculty members 
assigned to Negro schools on the basis of race may not be 
dismissed in consequence of enrollment losses resulting 
from the implementation of plans of desegregation, without 
comparison to other faculty members in the system, since 
such dismissals are clearly on the basis of race. In Frank­
lin v. County School Board of Giles County (Va.), 360 F.2d 
325 (4th Cir., 1966), the school board simply closed the



14

Negro schools, allowing all of the Negro children to trans­
fer to the formerly white schools, but discharging all of the 
Negro faculty members. The Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit held that on the record in the case, no com­
parative evaluation of the discharged teachers with the 
other teachers in the system had apparently been made, 
even though teachers were employed for service to the sys­
tem rather for a particular school, and that therefore “ the 
plaintiffs were discharged because of their race.” 360 F.2d 
at 327. The Court said:

The defendants have conceded that the Fourteenth 
Amendment forbids discrimination on account of race 
by a public school system with respect to the employ­
ment of teachers. Bradley v. School Board, 345 F.2d 
310, 316 (4 Cir. 1965), reversed on other grounds, 382 
U.S. 103 (1965).

Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled 
to a mandatory injunction requiring their reinstate­
ment. See: State ex rel Anderson v. Brand, 303 U.S. 
95 (1938); Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183 (1952); 
Todd v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Steel 
Workers of Chicago, 223 F.Supp. 12 (N.D. 111. 1963). 
We think the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act 
(42 U.S.C. § 2000 e-5(g)) where the courts are granted 
authority to order reinstatement of discriminitees fur­
ther supports our conclusion. 360 F.2d at 327.

In Chambers v. Hendersonville City Board of Education 
(N. Car.), 364 F.2d 189 (4th Cir., 1966), at the end of a 
school year the Negro enrollment in the system dropped 
by 50% because Negro students who had attended the city 
schools from adjoining counties were integrated into their 
respective county schools, and the city board of education 
then integrated its remaining Negro students into its



15

system, thereby reducing the number of teaching positions 
by five. Of the 24 Negro teachers in the system, only 
8 were offered re-employment for the following year, 
although every white teacher who indicated the desire was 
re-employed together with 14 new white teachers, all with­
out previous experience. All of the Negro teachers were 
required to stand comparison not only with all of the other 
teachers previously in the system, but with all of the new 
white applicants, before retaining their jobs, while none 
of the white teachers was subjected to this test. The 
Fourth Circuit said:

Patent upon the face of this record is the erroneous 
premise that when the 217 Negro pupils departed 
and the all Negro consolidated school was abolished, 
the Negro teachers lost their jobs and that they, there­
fore, stood in the position of new applicants. The 
Board’s conduct involved four errors of law. First, 
the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 
U.S. 483 (1954), forbids the consideration of race in 
faculty selection just as it forbids it in pupil place­
ment. See Wheeler v. Durham City Board of Educa­
tion, 346 F.2d 768, 773 (4 Cir. 1965). Thus the reduc­
tion in the number of Negro pupils did not justify a 
corresponding reduction in the number of Negro teach­
ers. Franklin v. County School Board of Giles County, 
360 F.2d 325 (4 Cir. 1966). Second, the Negro school 
teachers were public employes who could not be dis­
criminated against on account of their race with respect 
to their retention in the system. Johnson v. Branch, 
364 F.2d 177 (4 Cir. 1966), and cases therein cited, 
wherein the court discussed the North Carolina law 
respecting teacher contracts and the right of renewal. 
White teachers who met the minimum standards and 
desired to retain their jobs were not required to stand 
comparison with new applicants or with other teachers



16

in the system. Consequently the Negro teachers who 
desired to remain should not have been put to such 
a test. 364 F.2d at 192.

*  *  #

Finally, the test itself was too subjective to with­
stand scrutiny in the face of the long history of racial 
discrimination in the community and the failure of the 
public school system to desegregate in compliance with 
the mandate of Brown until forced to do so by litiga­
tion. In this background, the sudden disproportionate 
decimation in the ranks of the Negro teachers did raise 
an inference of discrimination which thrust upon the 
School Board the burden of justifying its conduct by 
clear and convincing evidence. Innumerable cases have 
clearly established the principle that under circum­
stances such as this where a history of racial discrimi­
nation exists, the burden of proof has been thrown upon 
the party having the power to produce the facts. In the 
field of jury discrimination see: Eubanks v. Louisicma, 
356 U.S. 584 (1958); Reece v. Georgia, 350 U.S. 85 
(1955); Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559 (1953); Norris 
v. Alabama, 294 U.S. 587 (1935). 364 F.2d at 192-193.

In Smith v. Board of Education of Morrilton School 
District No. 32 (Ark.), 365 F.2d 771 (8th Cir., 1966), the 
school board “re-elected” the Negro faculty members to 
the Negro school but without signing contracts with them 
at that time, and also adopted a “freedom of choice” de­
segregation plan at about the same time for compliance 
with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Upon ascertaining that 
the enrollment was going to drop precipitously at the Negro 
school, the board decided to close the Negro school alto­
gether and completely integrate the system, and then in­
formed all of the Negro teachers at the Negro school 
that their jobs were abolished. Shortly thereafter, 13



17

teachers resigned or retired during the course of the sum­
mer, and 14 new teachers were hired, 12 of whom were 
white. The Board said that it simply applied its traditional 
policy in cases of the closing of schools due to consolida­
tion, namely, to absorb the teachers of the closed school 
into the remaining schools if this could be done without 
displacement of other teachers and, if not, to dismiss the 
former. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said:

It is our firm conclusion that the reach of the Brown 
decisions, although they specifically concerned only 
pupil discrimination, clearly extends to the proscrip­
tion of the employment and assignment of public school 
teachers on a racial basis. Cf. United Public Workers 
v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 100, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754 
(1947); Wieman v. UpdegrajJ, 344 U.S. 183, 191-192, 
73 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216 (1952). See Colorado Anti- 
Discrimination Comm’n v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 
372 U.S. 714, 721, 83 S.Ct. 1022, 10 L.Ed.2d 84 (1963). 
This is particularly evident from the Supreme Court’s 
positive indications that nondiscriminatory allocation 
of faculty is indispensable to the validity of a desegre­
gation plan. Bradley v. School Board, supra; Rogers 
v. Paul, supra. . . .

We recognize the force of the Board’s position 
that the discharge of the Sullivan staff upon the 
school’s closing was only consistent with the action 
taken by the Board in connection with eleven other 
school consolidations, and consequent closings, in the 
past. This stands in contrast to the past practice 
noted in Franklin v. County School Bd., supra, p. 326 
of 360 F.2d. And we need not now determine whether 
across-the-board staff dismissals in the absence of 
vacancies when a school is closed, and the failure 
comparatively to evaluate the qualifications of those



18

dismissed with the qualifications of those retained, 
standing alone and apart from racial considerations, 
amount to an unconstitutional selection method. . . .

But on this record these dismissals do not stand 
alone. This Board maintained a segregated school 
system for more than a decade after its unconstitu­
tionality was known and before it implemented a plan 
to desegregate. The employment and assignment of 
teachers during this period were based on race. . . . 
The use of the freedom-of-choice plan, associated with 
the fact of a new high school plant, produced a result 
which the superintendent must have anticipated, de­
spite his testimony that he “ rather guessed” that Sulli­
van would continue to operate; . . .  All this reveals 
that the Sullivan teachers did indeed owe their dis­
missals in a very real sense to improper racial consid­
erations. The dismissals were a foreseeable conse­
quence of the Board’s somewhat belated effort to bring 
the school system into conformity with constitutional 
principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court of the 
United States. 365 F.2d at 778-779.



19

II.

Was the trial court within its allowable discretion in 
granting final relief after a hearing on a motion for 
preliminary injunction, where the defendant later of­
fered no new or different defenses which were not 
fully litigated at the initial hearing?

The District Court answered this question “Yes”  
and Appellees agree that it should have been answered 
“ Yes.”

The motion for temporary restraining order and/or 
preliminary injunction (21a-22a) raised the same issues 
as the original complaint (7a-21a). After a full hearing 
(26a-121a) on the motion in which defendants-appellants 
were able to offer all of the evidence which they thought 
relevant to the issues in the case, the trial court asked the 
parties if they would be satisfied to consider the hearing 
on the motion as the trial on the merits (107a). Defendants- 
appellants gave no indication at that time that they were 
dissatisfied with that hearing as a trial on the merits (107a). 
In their subsequent answer filed after the initial hearing 
(122a-127a), defendants-appellants did not offer any new 
defenses which had not been contained in their answer to 
the motion and response to show cause order (23a-26a) 
or which were not offered in the initial hearing (26a-121a). 
Both sides then thoroughly briefed the law and the evi­
dence as it had been introduced at the initial hearing 
(128a), and the district court then made an adverse de­
termination to defendants-appellants on the primary issue 
of whether the Negro faculty members were discharged 
because of race, and limited the subsequent hearing to the 
issue of damages (128a-139a).

It was only after this adverse determination that defen­
dants-appellants began to complain that they had not had



20

their full day in court on the issue of racial motivation in 
the discharges of plaintiffs-appellees (151a). At the sub­
sequent hearing on the issue of damages, defendants- 
appellants made an offer of proof (172a-180a) on the 
issue of racial motivation, which was rejected by the trial 
court (169a-172a). This offer of proof consisted only of 
the testimony of the Superintendent of Schools of Lincoln 
County, Everett C. Norman, who had previously testified 
at length (65a-101a) in the earlier hearing which led to 
the adverse determination, and did not contain any new 
relevant evidence which had not been previously intro­
duced before the adverse determination.

Thus by their failure to indicate any new evidence which 
should have been considered on the issue of whether the 
Negro faculty members were discharged because of race, 
defendants-appellants have clearly demonstrated that they 
had their full day in court. In its normal supervisory role 
of limiting the litigation in federal courts to those pro­
ceedings which are really necessary to resolve disputed 
issues, the district court was clearly within its allowable 
discretion in concluding that a sufficient hearing on the 
merits had been held.



21

III.

Was the trial court justified in concluding that the 
defendant board of education had not demonstrated 
that wrongfully discharged Negro faculty members failed 
to use reasonable efforts to mitigate their damages?

The District Court answered this question “ Yes” 
and Appellees agree that it should have been answered 
“Yes.”

The board of education attempted to show that Mrs. 
Rolfe had not brought her elementary certificate to the 
attention of the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Norman, 
and placed it on file in the superintendent’s office, as she 
said she had (102a-104a). However, the testimony of Louise 
Maddox, a clerk in the superintendent’s office, that Mrs. 
Rolfe had never left her elementary certificate there while 
she was employed by the school system, was thoroughly 
vitiated by her admissions that she dealt with the records 
of a large number of teachers, that the events in issue 
were a whole year previous to the time of the hearing, 
that Mrs. Rolfe had taken her records away from the office 
after her discharge, and that Miss Maddox had no way of 
knowing apart from her personal recollections that there 
had not been an elementary certificate on file (203a-208a). 
After moving to Nashville following her discharge, Mrs. 
Rolfe attempted to secure a number of different positions, 
but was unsuccessful in obtaining anything other than 
temporary employment (47a-48a).

The board of education attempted to show that it subse­
quently offered Mrs. Peebles a position similar to the one 
from which she was discharged, but the position was in 
fact that of a “visiting teacher” which is more similar to 
social work and involves no classroom teaching (188a,



22

197a, 220a), and Mrs. Peebles was certified as a high school 
mathematics teacher. Also, the Superintendent never 
called her and told her that there was a position avail­
able, as he had promised to do (61a, 188a, 24b). An em­
ployee in his office simply called earlier and said there was 
a “possibility” of a position becoming available (60a). 
After moving to Huntsville, Alabama, Mrs. Peebles at­
tempted to secure a number of different positions, but 
was unsuccessful in obtaining any employment (61a-62a, 
27b-30b). She applied to individual schools in the Hunts­
ville area rather than to the board of education office be­
cause she had been informed that it was the individual 
principals in the system who did the hiring (61a-62a).

The District Court having held the discharges of plain­
tiffs unconstitutional, it is clear that they were entitled to 
damages. Chambers v. Hendersonville City Board of Ed­
ucation., supra; Johnson v. Branch, supra; Franklin v. 
County School Board of Giles County, supra; Smith v. 
Hampton Training School for Nurses, 360 F.2d 577 (4th 
Cir., 1966). The proper measure of damages is the amount 
of pay which plaintiffs would have earned during the 
period from date of discharge to date of reinstatement, 
diminished by earnings in the interim during the school 
year. Smith v. Hampton Training School, supra. The 
Tennessee rule is that the defendants have the burden of 
proof in establishing matters asserted by them in mitiga­
tion or reduction of the amount of damages. International 
Correspondence School v. Crabtree, 162 Tenn. 70, 34 S.W. 
2d 447 (1931). Furthermore, the duty of an employee who 
is wrongfully discharged to minimize damages does not 
require such employee to take employment of an inferior 
or different nature, or to leave home and go to a distant 
place in order to obtain such employment. News Publish­
ing Co. v. Burger, 2 Tenn. Civ. App. 179 (1911). The Dis­
trict Court’s determination that wrongfully discharged



Negro faculty members bad used reasonable efforts to 
mitigate their damages was clearly in accord with the 
applicable law.

IV.

Was the trial court within its allowable discretion in 
awarding nominal attorneys’ fees to Negro faculty mem­
bers who had been discharged because of race, where 
there had been a long history of discriminatory con­
duct on the part of the board of education, and the 
bringing of the action should have been unnecessary?

The District Court answered this question “ Yes” 
and Appellees agree that it should have been answered 
“ Yes.”

The District Court said:

It has heretofore been found by the Court that the 
defendants have been guilty of “ * * # a long-continued 
pattern of evasion and obstruction # * * ” of the de­
segregation of the public schools system of Lincoln 
County, Tennessee. In such event counsel fees are 
allowable, and disallowance of such fees is an abuse of 
judicial discretion (239a).

This is clearly in accord with the applicable law. Bell v. 
School Board of Powhatan County, Virginia, 321 F.2d 494 
(4th Cir., 1963); Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of 
the City of Jackson, Tenn., 244 F.Supp. 353 (D.C.W.D., 
Tenn., 1965); Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 186 
F.2d 473 (4th Cir., 1951); Bradley v. School Board of the 
City of Richmond, 345 F.2d 310 (4th Cir., 1965); 6 Moore’s 
Federal Practice (2nd Ed.) 1349, 1352. It should be noted 
that the amount of attorneys’ fees awarded ($250) is 
nominal, considering the amount of effort which had to 
be expended in such a complex case.



24

Relief

For the foregoing reasons, the Appellees contend that 
the judgments of the District Court should be affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack Greenberg 
James M. Nabrit, III 
M ichael J. H enry

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019

A von N. W illiams, Jr.
Z. A lexander L ooby

McClellan-Looby Building 
Charlotte at Fourth 
Nashville, Tennessee

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees



APPENDIX



APPEN DIX A

Excerpts from Minutes of Lincoln County Board of Ed­
ucation Pertaining to School Desegregation Since 1954

(Exhibit 3)

June 24, 1955—The Board discussed but took no action on 
a letter received from the State Commissioner of Educa­
tion relative to Supreme Court decision on school inte­
gration.

August 15, 1955—Motion by Reed second by Jennings that 
in view of much consideration on the subject of integration 
that we, hereby, go on record as adopting a plan to be 
known as the Free Choice Plan of school attendance for 
negro and white children in Lincoln County, to take effect 
with the school year 1956-57 embodying the principles 
suggested by this name and instruct the Superintendent 
of Education to proceed immediately to work out the de­
tails of this plan for presentation to this Board at the 
earliest practical time. Motion carried.”

April 12, 1956—Prof. Lemons appeared before the Board 
to present a discussion on school consolidation for the 
negro schools of Lincoln County. He pointed out that his 
presentation would include the following three points:

1. County wide consolidation of negro schools
2. Promotion of good race relations.

3. A savings to the tax payers.

He further pointed out that they are 557 negro students 
in Lincoln County and that consolidation would provide 
for all (1) hot lunches, (2) central heating, (3) inside toilet

lb



2b

facilities (4) conserve teachers and (5) provide a more 
complete curriculum. This, if accomplished, would continue 
race relations on the present high levels. Integration would 
not necessarily be a forced issue. Prof. Lemons asked if 
the Board if they would like to have the above presenta­
tion in written form. The Chairman informed that the 
Board desired such a written plan and thanked him.”

March 8, 1961—Prof. Lemons and Prof. Curtis appeared 
before the Board with long-range plan for consolidating 
all county and city Negro schools. No action was taken. 
Further study was recommended. It was decided to wait 
for legislative action pending General Assembly. Attached 
is a copy of their plan.

August 3, 1964— The policy on Civil Bights was discussed. 
Mr. Norman read a letter from Commissioner Warf, con­
cerning this law. Action was deferred for the moment.

The Civil Rights discussion was reopened. Mr. Hodges 
read the present policy on the admission of pupils to 
schools. The Chairman asked Mr. Hodges to amend the 
present policy to comply with the Civil Rights Law and 
to read it to the Board as amended.

Motion by Hodges second by Fowler that policy no. 5111 
be amended and adopted as follows:

“Requirements for A dmission to L incoln County 
S chools Grades 1-12 I ncluding the M inim um  A ge 
for the A dmission of P upils”

Any child residing within Lincoln County, Tennessee and 
who has attained the age of six (6) years on or before 
December 31st following the beginning of the school term

Appendix A



3b

may enter at the beginning of the school year, any public 
school within the school district in which he resides.

This policy shall be administered in compliance with Title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Motion carried.

Dec. 7, 1964—-Mr. Norman reported on the Human Rela­
tions in Nashville. About 600 people from all fields of 
business, attended. Mr. Norman quoted Mabel Martin, a 
negro lawyer, who had discussed at length, the Civil Rights 
Law in respect to schools. The basic point of the whole 
discussion seemed to be that every school in Tennessee 
must have a plan for integration by nest school year and 
it must be implemented as soon as possible. Each county 
will be responsible for its own plan.
Mr. Hodges suggested we write Congressman Evins for a 
copy of Title VI also a copy of the executive order to the 
Justice Department, the Civil Rights Commission, and 
Health, Education and Welfare on the Implementation of 
the Act.

January 4, 1965—Mr. Norman reported that a map of the 
county is being made to show the location of each negro 
child. He also that Miss McAfee had made a survey of 
the Negro Classroom instruction and that she had said 
the negro instructors were on an average with the white 
instructors. These things have been done in preparation 
for making a plan for integration.

January 15, 1965—Mr. Norman stated the purpose of this 
meeting is to get a plan of integration made and into 
the hands of the Commissioner. No contracts can be signed 
for Federal Funds after January 3, 1965 until such time

Appendix A



4b

as the plan is received by the Commissioner. Mr. Norman 
stated the three alternatives as given by the Commissioner 
as follows:

1. Sign a “Plan of Assurance” of making a plan for 
abiding by the regulations;

2. Make a plan and mail it to Washington for ap­
proval; or

3. Operate under a court order.

Mr. Norman stated he thought the first plan was the most 
feasible. He read the “Plan of Assurance” to the Board. 
The steps to take are: (1) Sign the Plan of Assurance, 
(2) Publish intent of complying, and (3) Put the plan into 
action.

There was a long discussion on each of the three alterna­
tives. The motion was made by Mr. Smith and seconded 
by Mr. Erwin that the Assurance of Compliance be signed 
to-night (Jan. 15) Vote: 4 yes, 4 no. Motion dead.

The motion was then made by Mr. Porter and seconded 
by Mr. Pendergrass that discussion on the motion be de­
ferred until the next meeting, a study be made and that 
action be taken at that time. Motion carried. The meeting 
date was set for January 25.

January 25, 1965—Special session. Superintendent read 
the Assurance Agreement with the Department of Health, 
Education and Welfare for the benefit of those who were 
not present at the last meeting. Mr. Erwin moved that the 
Board comply with the signing of the Assurance agree­
ment of Title VI of the new Civil Rights Law. Mr. Taft 
seconded. Vote: 4 yes, 4 no. No action.

Appendix A



5b

Mr. Hodges moved that a certified copy of the Board min­
utes of Aug. 3, 1964 be sent to the Commissioner of Edu­
cation and a plan of total system improvement be pre­
sented at the next regular meeting of the Board for their 
consideration, one element of the plan being to comply 
with Title VI of the Civil Bights Law. Mr. Pendergrass 
seconded. Vote : 4 yes, 4 no. No action.

Mr. Hodges then moved that the resolution already on 
the minutes of the Board (August 3, 1964) serve as official 
implementation for the signing of Assurance of Compli­
ance with the Health, Education and Welfare Regulation 
under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mr. Porter 
seconded. This motion carried, unanimously.

Feb. 8, 1965—Motion by Erwin second by Smith that an 
integrated supper for safety promotion be planned by Mr. 
Sowell for bus drivers and Board members. Motion carried.

May 10, 1965—Mr. Norman read the Amended Plan for 
Compliance with the Civil Rights Law. Motion by Smith 
second by Fowler that the amended plan be adopted to 
supersede all other plans. Motion carried.

Appendix A



A
P

P
E

N
D

IX
 B

Lincoln County Department of Education —  Roster of Teachers 1965-66
(Exhibit 5)

N a m e o f  T each er

jE ducation  Sc 
Q ualifica­

tions

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b jec ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  

tea ch ers)

R ach el Jean W 4  Y ears 27  Y ears P erm
W o r ld  H istory , L ibrarian , 
M athem atics 7 & 8 B lanche

L u cille  H a ll W 4  Y ears 32 Y ears P erm
E n glish  9 & 11, 
G eneral B usiness B lanche

E llen  J ob e W 2 Y ears 26 Y ears G rade 3 B lanche

S tan ley  M ullins W 4 Y ears 8 Y ears P erm
A lg eb ra  1 & 2, B io log y , 
A rith m etic 9 Blanche

F ran ces  W a tson W 4  Y ears 38 Y ears P erm G rade 2 B lanche

M ildred  T w itty W 4  Y ears 27 Y ears P erm
Shorthand, B ook k eep in g , 
T y p in g  1 & 2 B lanche

E v a  G roce w 4  Y ears 19 Y ears P erm G rade 1 Blanche

W a y n e  M oore w 4  Y ears 5 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob

E n glish  10 & 12, 
L an guage A rts  7 B lanche

M arily n  M cD on a ld N 3 Y ears 2 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob G rades 4  & 5 Com b. B lanche



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R ace

E d u ca tion  4" 
Qualifica­

tion s

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b jec ts  T aught

A ss ign ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  

tea ch ers)

D elton  A sh b y w 4 Y ears 2 Y ears
2  Y r  
P rob G rades 5 & 6 Com b. B lanche

Jan ice  Sm ith w 3 Y ears 1 Y ear
1 Y r  
P rob

S ocia l S tudies & P . E ., 
L anguage A rts  7 & 8 B lanche

L a rry  B urks w 4  Y ears 10 Y ears
3 Y r  
P rob

A dm in istration  
A th letic Coach B lanche

L a rry  P atterson w 2 Y ears 0 Y ears P rob
A m erican  H istory , 
P E  (B o y s  &  G irls) B lanche A u g  2, 1965

D ru silla  N osson w 4 Y ears 23 Y ears P erm
G eneral Science, C hem istry, 
V o c . H om e E c. B lanche

Thom as M ann w 4  Y ears 14 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob

Science 7, V oca tion a l 
A gricu ltu re B lanche

B u fo rd  B eadle w 5 Y ears 17 Y ears Perm
A dm in istration , A dv an ced  
M ath, P E  (G ir ls ) B oonsh ill H

K ath leen  W elch w 4 Y ears 29 Y ears Perm G rade 5 B oon sh ill E

D oris  Zeigler w 4 Y ears 19 Y ears P erm G rades 1 & 2 B oon sh ill E

June M cK in n ey w 4  Y ears 17 Y ears P erm G rade 4 B oon sh ill E

M argaret Sullivan w 5 Y ears 17 Y ears P erm
H is to ry  8, Spanish, 
E nglish  7, L ibrarian B oon sh ill H



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er B a ce

E d u ca tion  $■ 
Q ualifica­

tion s

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b je c ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  
tea ch ers )

P a u l M cK in n ey W 3 Y ears 3 Y ears
3 Y r  
P r o b G rade 6 B oon sh ill E

M arie M edley W 4  Y ears 9 Y ears P erm G rades 2 & 3 B oon sh ill E

T y ron e  In gra m W 4  Y ears 2 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob

M ath 7 & 8, A lg eb ra  I ,  
W o r ld  H is to ry , H ealth B oon sh ill H

C arolyn  F oster W 4  Y ears 3 Y ears
2 Y r  
P r o b

E n glish  9, T y p in g , 
Shorthand B oon sh ill H

P h illip  Thom son W 5 Y ears 9 Y ears P erm
A lg eb ra  I I ,  B io log y , 
C hem istry, S cien ce 8 B oon sh ill H

B ra  G. T em pleton W 4  Y ears 4  Y ears P erm
E nglish  8, S cien ce 7, 
H om e E con om ics B oon sh ill H

G erth A lex a n d er W 5 Y ears 21 Y ears P erm
G eneral Science 
V o c . A gricu ltu re B oon sh ill H

N ancy  W ilso n W 4  Y ears 2 Y ears P rob
E n glish
A m erican  H is to ry B oon sh ill H A u g . 20, 1965

H ild a  Sm ith W 4 Y ears 2 Y ears P r o b
E nglish
A m erican  H is to ry B oon sh ill H Oct. 4 , 1965

L eon ard  M ansfield W 4  Y ears 29 Y ears P erm S u perv isin g  P r in cip a l C entral H



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R a ce

E d u ca tion  $■ 
Qualifica­

tions

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b je c ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  

tea ch ers )

C harles L in sday w 4 Y ears 36 Y ears P erm
Science I
A ssistant P r in cip a l C entral H

R uth  M eC ow n w 4  Y ears 33 Y ears P erm G uidance C ounselor C entral H

P auline B u rton w 4 Y ears 29 Y ears P erm
W o r ld  H is to ry  
B ook k eep in g Central H

K en t R a y w 4 Y ears 26 Y ears Perm
L atin  I  & I I ,  
P lan e G eom etry C entral H

B ern ice M atcher w 4  Y ears 18 Y ears Perm E nglish  I  & I I I Central H

G ertrude L in dsay w 5 Y ears 38 Y ears P erm L ibrarian Central H

H e n ry  Jenn ings w 5 Y ears 19 Y ears P erm
C hem istry, P hysics, 
G eneral M ath Central H

D avid  P itts w 4  Y ears 9 Y ears P erm F ootb a ll C oach C entral H

Iren e  F u lm er w 4 Y ears 20 Y ears Perm B io log y Central H

E ra  D ick ey w 4 Y ears 18 Y ears P erm E nglish  I V Central H

Charles Spears w 4 Y ears 6 Y ears
3 Y r  
P rob

Pliys. E d . (B o y s )  
B io log y Central H

M artha M cD an iel w 4 Y ears 38 Y ears P erm A m erican  H is to ry C entral H



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er jRace

E d u ca tion
Q ualifica­

tion s

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b jec ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  

tea ch ers)

M a ry  F a rra r w 4  Y ears 28 Y ears P erm T y p in g , Shorthand Central H

D elane H olla n d w 2  Y ears 4 Y ears
3 Y r  
P r o b E nglish  I Central H

R o y  Sw eeney w 5 Y ears 34 Y ears P erm
A lg eb ra  I I ,  
P lan e G eom etry Central H

G ilbert Sm ith w 4  Y ears 6 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob

G eograp h y  I ,  
B and  D irector Central H

F lo y d  Graham w 6 Y ears 19 Y ears
1 Y r  
P rob

A m erican  H is to ry  
P roblem s o f  D em ocracy C entral H M a y  3, 1965

J oa n  W h ite w 4 Y ears 4 Y ears
1 Y r
P rob E nglish  I I I C entral H M a y  3, 1965

J im m y Stew art w 4  Y ears 0 Y ears P rob
P roblem s o f  D em ocracy  
E nglish  I I Central H J u ly  16, 1965

M aurice E llis w 4 Y ears 1 Y ea r P rob
T y p in g , Gen. Business, 
G eograp h y  I Central H J u ly  16, 1965

J im m y B uchanan w 3 Y ears 0 Y ears P r o b
D ra ftin g , 
M anual A rts Central H J u ly  6, 1965

E ln a  Spears w 4 Y ears 4 Y ears
3 Y r
P r o b E n glish  I I ,  S cien ce I Central H



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R ace

E d u ca tion  Sr 
Qualifica­

tions

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b jec ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  

tea ch ers)

K a ty  T od d w 4 Y ears 3 Y ears
1 Y r  
P rob

G eogra p h y  I , 
G irls P hys. E d . C entral H J u ly  16, 1965

C harlotte Graham w 4 Y ears 18 Y ears P erm H om e E conom ies C entral H

Thelm a P arks w 4 Y ears 5 Y ears P erm
Science I  
H om e E con om ics Central H

R a lp h  H astings w 5 Y ears 18 Y ears P erm
G uidance C ounselor 
V oca tion a l A gricu ltu re Central H

Jane H y d er w 4  Y ears 1 Y ear
1 Y r  
P rob

E nglish  I I  
Span ish  I  & I I C entral H

G ordon  W o o d w 4 Y ears 1 Y ear P rob
S olid  Geom ., T rig . 
A lg eb ra  I Central H A u g . 20, 1965

M artha C ra w ford w 4  Y ears 8 Y ears
1 Y r  
P rob

S olid  Geom ., T rig . 
A lg eb ra  I Central H D ec. 6, 1965

E ld red  T u cker w 5 Y ears 21 Y ears Perm S u perv isin g  P rin cip a l 8th D ist. E

B essie D aves w 3 Y ears 32 Y ears Lim . 1st G rade 8 th D ist. E

K ath leen  Griffin w 4 Y ears 37 Y ears P erm 5th Grade 8th D ist. E

M innie W a lk er w 5 Y ears 33 Year's Perm 2nd G rade 8th D ist. E

M orelle  M cN att w 4  Y ears 27 Y ears P erm 8th G rade 8 th D ist. E



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N am e o f  T each er R a ce

E d u ca tion  fy 
Qualifica­

tion s

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enu re
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b jec ts  T a ught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  
tea ch ers )

E rn estin g  W ilson w 4  Y ears 17 Y ears P erm 7th Grade 8th D ist. E

V ilm a  M cG ee w 4  Y ears 32 Y ears P erm 3rd G rade 8th D ist. E

E lizabeth  B untin w 4  Y ears 21 Y ears P erm 4th G rade 8th D ist. E

R u th  M organ w 4 Y ears 25 Y ears Perm 7th  Grade 8th D ist. E

V irg in ia  D avidson w 4 Y ears 23 Y ears P erm 1st G rade 8th D ist. E

M ildred  Quinn w 4  Y ears 12 Y ears P erm 1st G rade 8th D ist. E

A lb erto  B u n tley w 5 Y ears 19 Y ears P erm 6th G rade 8th D ist. E

D illon  Sm ith w 3 Y ears 25 Y ears Lim . 8th G rade 8th D ist. E

M in k  V ile y w 4  Y ears 21 Y ears P erm 3rd G rade 8th D ist. E

Thelm a F a rrar w 3 Y ears 9 Y ears Lim . 5th & 6th G rades Com b. 8th D ist. E

E v e ly n  W h ita k er w 3 Y ears 26 Y ears Lim . 4th G rade 8th D ist. E

L y n n  N orm an w 3 Y ears 30 Y ears Lim . 2n d  G rade 8th D ist. E

M a ry  C onger w 4  Y ears 15 Y ears
3 Y r  
P rob 2n d  & 3rd G rades Com b. 8 th D ist. E

A n n  L e ftw ich w 4  Y ears 1 Y ea r
1 Y r  
P rob 5th G rade 8th D ist. E



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  Teaelier R ace

E d u ca tion
Qualifica­

tions

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b jec ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
School

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  

tea ch ers)

A lla n  H aynes w 4 Y ears 0 Y ears P rob
Socia l Science 6 
M ath., & 6-8 P .E . 8th D ist. E A u gu st 2, 1965

M argaret Curtis N 5 Y ears 9 Y ears P erm S pecia l E du cation 8th D ist. E

R ussell M cA lister W 2 Y ears 35 Y ears Lim . P rin cip a l, 8th Grade E lora  E

Lucille  R obertson w 3 Y ears 30 Y ears Lim . 4th Grade E lora  E

M a ry  R am sey w 3 Y ears 22 Y ears Lim . 2nd Grade E lora  E

Joh n n ie  W a lk e r w 4 Y ears 35 Y ears Perm 3rd  Grade E lora  E

R ob b ie  W a lk er w 2 Y ears 4  Y ears Lim . 1st G rade E lora  E

J o y  K in g w 2 Y ears 1 Y ear
1 Y r  
P rob 5th Grade E lora  E

R a y  L aF evers w 2 Y ears 1 Y ear
1 Y r  
P rob 6th G rade E lora  E

W o r le y  M cK in n ey w 3 Y ears 0 Y ears P rob 7th Grade E lora  E J u ly  16, 1965

W a rn er  Sim m ons w 2 Y ears 20 Y ears Lim . P r in c ip a l; 7th G rade F lin tv ille  E

K a ttie  S n oddy w 2 Y ears 20 Y ears Lim . 2nd Grade F lin tv ille  E

E lw yin  W a lk er w 3 Y ears 17 Y ears Lim . 8th Grade F lin tv ille  E



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R a ce

E d u ca tion
Qualifica­

tion s

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m en t
T enure
S tatus N a tu re  o f  S u b je c ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  
tea ch ers)

L ois  W in sett w 4  Y ears 33 Years P erm 3rd G rade F lin tv ille  E

E sth er R u d d er w 3 Y ears 28 Y ears Lim . 1st G rade F lin tv ille  E

L oretta  M add ox w 4  Y ears 5 Y ears P erm 5th G rade F lin tv ille  E

Id a  P ig g w 3 Y ears 28 Y ears Lim . 4th G rade F lin tv ille  E

A rlin  Sim s w 2 Y ears 14 Y ears Lim . 7th G rade F lin tv ille  E

R u b y  C lark w 4  Y ears 27 Y ears P erm 7th G rade F lin tv ille  E

Shields T em pleton w 4  Y ears 2 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob 6th G rade F lin tv ille  E

J oe  V a n n w 4  Y ears 16 Y ears P erm P rin cip a l F lin tv ille  H

F . C. D u g gin w 4  Y ears 18 Y ears P erm P hys. E d . F lin tv ille  H

K itt ie  P orter w 5 Y ears 27 Y ears P erm
Chem istry, Spanish, 
P h ysics, G uidance F lin tv ille  H

M argaret Jenn ings w 4  Y ears 22 Y ears Perm E nglish , L ibrarian F lin tv ille  H

Sue C olden w 5 Y ears 25 Y ears P erm H om e E con om ics F lin tv ille  H

B illy  W a rren w 4  Y ears 1 Y ear
1 Y r  
P rob

A m erican  H is to ry  
W o r ld  H is to ry F lin tv ille  H



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R ace

E d u ca tion  $  
Qualifica­

tions

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b jec ts  T aught

A ss ign ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  
tea ch ers )

P aul C urrin w 4  Year's 3 Y ears
3 Y r  
P rob B io log y F lin tv ille  H

M ary  S. T a y lor w 4  Y ears 19 Y ears
3 Y r  
P rob

E nglish , Gen. Science, 
G uidance F lin tv ille  H

D w igh t S torey w 4  Y ears 4 Y ears
3 Y r  
P rob

Gen. Science, Gen. Bus., 
T y p in g F lin tv ille  H

W in n ie  R . C u rrey w 5 Y ears 30 Y ears Perm E nglish  I I I  & I Y F lin tv ille  H

M a ry  E . Barnes w 4 Y ears 0 Y ears P rob
Shorthand, T y p in g , 
B ook k eep in g F lin tv ille  H A p r il  5, 1965

Jeannette M ullins w 4  Y ears 4 Y ears P erm E n glish  I  & I I F lin tv ille  H

C on S. M assey w 4 Y ears 22 Y ears P erm V oca tion a l A gricu ltu re F lin tv ille  H

Joh n  T a y lo r w 4 Y ears 0 Y ears P rob
A lg eb ra  I  & I I  
M athem atics I I I  & I V F lin tv ille  H A u g . 30, 1965

Jam es Stephens w 4  Y ears 8 Y ears P erm S u perv isin g  P rin cip a l H igh lan d  R im

Iv a  H end erson w 2 Y ears 29 Y ears Lim . 4th Grade H igh lan d  R im

F ran ces B u rton w 2 Y ears 9 Y ears Lim . 5th G rade H igh lan d  R im

E u la  D . Saw yers w 3 Y ears 35 Y ears 6th Grade H igh lan d  R im



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R a ce

E d u ca tion  $■ 
Qualifica­

tions

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b je c ts  T a ught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  
tea ch ers)

J ab le  D ean w 4  Y ears 7 Y ears
2 Y r . 
P rob 7-8 M athem atics H igh lan d  R im

Christine A b b e y w 3 Y ears 2 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob 1st G rade H igh lan d  R im

J oa n  W a tson w 3 Y ears 8 Y ears
1 Y r  
P rob 3rd G rade H igh lan d  R im

M ildred  C ooper w 6 Y ears 14  Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob Science 7, L ibrarian H igh lan d  R im

G lenda Cham blee w 4  Y ears 1 Y ear
1 Y r  
P rob 4th Grade H igh lan d  R im

G ail C rane w 3 Y ears 2 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob 1st G rade H igh lan d  R im

V irg in ia  Jean w 4  Y ears 6 Y ears
1 Y r  
P rob E n glish  7, 8 H igh lan d  R im

L ou  T em pleton w 3 Y ears 2 Y ears
1 Y r  
P rob 5th G rade H igh lan d  R im

A n n  B olles w 4  Y ears 0 Y ears P rob 2nd G rade H igh lan d  R im A p r . 5, 1965

E lsie  M ills w 3 Y ears 34 Y ears Lim . 2nd  G rade H igh lan d  R im



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R ace

E d u ca tion  <$■ 
Q ualifica­

tion s

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b jec ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  

tea ch ers)

N ew ton  G ray w 2 Y ears 0 Y ears P rob
P hys. E d .
Socia l Studies 8 H igh lan d  R im A p r . 20, 1965

M a ry  Lem ons N 4 Y ears 25 Y ears Perm 6th G rade H igh lan d  R im

A lm a  Graham W 4  Y ears 7 Y ears P rob 3rd  Grade H igh lan d  R im Sept. 7, 1965

D arlena H ard in N 4 Y ears 9 Y ears P erm
7 & 8 S ocia l Studies 
Science 8 H igh lan d  R im

A u d ra  Grisham W 3 Y ears 24 Y ears
P rin cip a l 
Grades 5-8 H ow ell E

Oleta C am pbell w 4 Y ears 17 Y ears P erm Grades 1 -4 H ow ell E

W . C. R ich ardson w 4  Y ears 6 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob

P rin cip a l 
Grades 7-8 K elso  E

R uth  W in fo r d w 2 Y ears 25 Y ears Lim . Grades 3 -4 K elso  E

L u cy  C raw ford w 4  Y ears 33 Y ears Perm G rades 5-6 K elso  E

E m m a B ran don w 1 Y ear 29 Y ears Grades 1 & 2 K elso  E

Jane W essm an w 4  Y ears 8 Y ears P rob G rade 1 L in coln  E A u g . 20, 1965

C. L . J oa n  Jr. w 5 Y ears 8 Y ears P erm
P rin cip a l 
G rade 8 L in co ln  E



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er B a ce

E d u ca tion  ^ 
Q ualifica­

tion s

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b je c ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  

tea ch ers )

L ouise F ly n t W 4  Y  ears 28 Y ears P erm G rade 2 L in co ln  E

M artha M ansfield w 2 Y ears 17 Y ears G rade 7 L in coln  E

W a w ed a  C oble w 5 Year’s 20 Y ears P erm G rade 6 L in co ln  E

Carrah Jared w 3 Y ears 13 Y ears P erm G rade 1 L in co ln  E

Ju an ita  Jean w 4  Y ears 16 Y ears P erm G rade 3 L in co ln  E

B ery l H arb in w 4  Y ears 3 Y ears P erm G rade 5 L in co ln  E

J e rry  H on ey w 4 Y ears 0 Y ears P rob G rade 4 L in co ln  E A u g . 2, 1965

E ra  M ae C ra w ford w 8 Y ears 29 Y ears
P rin cip a l 
G rades 7  & 8 M u lberry  E

E llen  G raham w 4  Y ears 18 Y ears P erm G rades 4, 5, & 6 M u lberry  E

F ran ces  Sm all w 3 Y ears 17 Y ears Lim . G rades 1, 2, & 3 M u lberry  E

Thurm an C obb w 5 Y ears 20 Y ears P erm P rin cip a l 
G rade 8 P etersbu rg  E

S ara  T a lley w 4  Y ears 33 Y ears Perm G rade 4 P etersbu rg  E

M arie  Beech w 3 Y ears 4  Y ears Lim . G rade 3 P etersbu rg  E

M ild red  S cott w 4  Y ears 28 Y ears P erm G rade 5 P etersb u rg  E



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R a ce

E d u ca tion  fy 
Qualifica­

tions

L en g th  o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enure
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b je c ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m ent (n ew  

tea ch ers)

H elen  B ow ers w 4  Y ears 12 Y ears Perm G rade 7 P etersbu rg  E

M a ry  T ay lor w 4  Y ears 23 Y ears Perm G rade 1 P etersburg  E

Loutella B attebo N 5 Y ears 18 Y ears P erm
G rade 2
Specia l E du cation P etersburg  E

G eorge H ow ard N 4 Y ears 10 Y ears P erm G rade 6 P etersburg  E

P e g g y  E ddins W 4  Y ears 0 Y ears P rob G rade 2 P etersburg  E N ov. 1 , 1965

C lyde M oore w 4 Y ears 32 Y ears P erm
P rin cip a l 
G rade 8 T a ft  E

M arian  T a ftt w 4 Y ears 33 Y ears P erm G rades 6 & 7 T a ft  E

M ild red  G ray w 4 Y ears 31 Y ears P erm Grades 4 & 6 T a ft  E

P ran ces  B a rron w 5 Y ears 10 Y ears P erm G rade 1 T a ft  E

Omah W allace w 3 Y ears 36 Y ears Lim . G rades 2 & 3 T a ft  E

H aze l A sk in s N 4 Y ears 4 Y ears Lim . Grades 2 & 5 T a ft  E

Jam es B ain w 4  Y ears 3 Y ears P erm
P rin cip a l 
Grades 6, 7, & 8 V a n n  E

P a tsy  S isk w 4 Y ears 5 Y ears Perm G rades 1 & 2 V a n n  E



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

N a m e o f  T each er R ace

E d u ca tion  4" 
Qualifica­

tion s

Length, o f  
E m p lo y ­

m ent
T enu re
S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b je c ts  T aught

A ss ig n ed
S chool

D a te  o f  E m p lo y ­
m en t (n ew  
tea ch ers )

M artha G unter W 4 Y ears 7 Y ears
1 Y r  
P r o b G rades 3, 4, & 5 V a n n  E J u ly  16, 1965

A je lb e r t  Dum as N 5 Y ears 27 Y ears P erm
P rin cip a l, C hem istry 
U nified  G eom etry W e st E n d  H

Jesse W in loek N 4  Y ears 17 Y ears P erm
S ocia l Studies, 
B and D irector W est E n d  H

Thom as M cD on a ld N 4  Y ears 13 Y ears P erm
Gen. Science, B io log y , 
H ealth  & P .E . W e st E n d  H

W illia m  Battle N 4 Y ears 20 Y ears P erm
A rithm etic , H ealth  
F ootb a ll C oach W est E n d  H

J o e  A skin s N 4 Y ears 7 Y ears P erm
T y p in g , G eneral Business, 
Shorthand W est E n d  H

Channie P ig g N 4  Y ears 24 Y ears Lim . G rades 1, 2, 3 W est E n d  E

Dura S. G reg ory N 3 Y ears 29 Y ears Lim . G rades 4, 5, 6 W e st E n d  E

B eulah Dum as N 4  Y ears 37 Y ears P erm E nglish , L ibrarian W est E n d  H

A n n  E a d y N 5 Y ears 16 Y ears P erm
E nglish
V oe . H om e E c. W est E n d  H

L. C . Curtis N 4 Y ears 16 Y ears P erm V o c . T & I W est E n d  H



A
pp

en
di

x 
B

E d u ca tion  $• L en g th  o f  D a te  o f  E m p loy -
Q valifica- E m p loy - T enure A ss ig n ed  m en t (n ew

N am e o f  T each er R ace tion s  m ent S ta tus N a tu re  o f  S u b je c ts  T aught S chool tea ch ers)

Charles E a d y N 4 Y ears 12 Y ears P erm
E con om ics, Science,
H is to ry  W e st E n d  H

B etty  Sherw ood W 4  Y ears 3 Y ears
3 Y r  
P rob S pecia l E du cation , (illeg ib le ) C ountyw ide

Sue B urroughs w 5 Y ears 20 Y ears Perm S pecia l E du cation , ( illeg ib le ) 8th D istrict

G racie D rennon w 3 Y ears 9 Y ears P rob Specia l E du cation , (illeg ib le ) 8th D istrict

W ilso n  Su llivan w 2 Y ears 3 Y ears
3 Y r  
P rob S p ecia l E du cation , ( illeg ib le ) C ountyw ide

Oeda C raig w 4 Y ears 15 Y ears Perm S pecia l E du cation , S & E  C ountyw ide

L ois W h ite w 5 Y ears 33 Y ears P erm
Spanish  In structor
S pecia l E du cation  C ountyw ide

Effie E llio tt w 0 Y ears 1 Y ear P rob S pecia l E du cation , ( illeg ib le ) C ountyw ide

E ddene W a g g on er w 0 Y ears 2 Y ears P rob Specia l E du cation , ( illeg ib le ) C ountyw ide

M arian  M cA fe e w 5 Y ears 37 Y ears P erm In struction a l S u p erv isor C ountyw ide

E lizabeth  P arker w 5 Y ears 41 Y ears P erm A tten dance Teacher C ountyw ide

E lv ira  R o lfe N 4 Y ears 5 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob

B ern ice  P och lee N 4  Y ears 3 Y ears
2 Y r  
P rob



22b

Negroes Enrolled —  Entrance Dates 
(Exhibit 13)

CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 
F ayetteville, Tennessee 

1965-1966

Entered according to regulations 
during summer registration or first day of school, 

Aug. 23, 1965

APPEN D IX C

Boys Girls Total
Senior

1. Dixon, Jerry H. 1. Bonner, Jewell 7
2. Hampton, Robert L. 2. Smith, Loretta
3. Murphy, Edward 3. Wilson, Vera
4. Smith, James Larry

Junior

1. Goodrich, John
2. Parks,Alton
3. Phelps, Terry

1. Bailey, Edith 6
(w. 9/15/65)

2. Knott, Mae Tom
3. Smith, Gloria

Sophomore

1. Henderson, William 1. Parks, Beatrice 9
2. Johnson, Anthony 2. Small, Mary Linda
3. King, Larry 3. Wilson, Pauline
4. Porter, Roderick
5. Small, Norman Lee
6. Moore, Dwight 

(E. 1/3/66)



23b

Appendix C

Freshman

1. Bonner, Eugene 
(w. 9/15/65)

2. Dixon, Jackie Randall

1. Bean, Denise
2. Cathey, Brenda
3. Hicks, Annie Sue
4. Parks, Dwindle
5. Parks, Mary Ella
6. Porter, Sandra
7. Wilson, Jacquelyn

31

Boys
Senior

Entered 8/31/65

Girls

1. King, John Robert
2. Parks, Leon Hayes
3. Sharp, Robert Clark

Junior

1. Brown, Bobby
2. Shull, Jerry Wayne

Sophomore 
1. Leslie, Willie Bee

Freshman

1. Milan, James Howard 
(Dropped 1/18/66)

1. Bragg, Junell
2. Russell, Bessie

Total

1. Dyer, Mary Catherine 2

1

10



24b

Letter of Discharge
(Exhibit 11)

DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION 
L incoln County

UNION STEEET

F ayetteville, Tennessee 37334
E. C. NOEMAN, SUPT.

September 8, 1965 

Dear Bernice T. Peebles:

Because of the decrease in attendance at West End 
School the Lincoln County Board of Education regrets 
that it has become necessary to declare your position 
abolished as of 3 :00 P. M., September 8, 1965.

Under the Tennessee Code 49-2410, tenure teachers who 
are dismissed because of abolition of position shall be 
placed upon a preferred list for reemployment. We shall 
be glad to contact you when a vacancy arises in line with 
your certification and qualifications.

Very sincerely yours,

/ s /  E. C. N obman

E. C. Norman, Superintendent 
Lincoln County Schools

/ s /  A. G. Jennings, Jb.
A. G. Jennings, Jr., Chairman 
Lincoln County Board of Education

APPEN DIX D

/btw



25b

Teachers and Students by Race in Each School 
—  Lincoln County, Tenn.

(Exhibit 7)

APPEN DIX E

SCHOOL STUDENTS TEACHERS GRADE

W N W N

Boonshill 277 7 13 0 None
Blanche 287 44 14 1 Grade Five
Central HS 754 37 29 0 None
Eighth Dist. 592 0 19 1 Reading Specialist 

(Promotion)
Flintville Ele. 261 2 8 1 Seventh Grade
Flintville HS 309 2 14 0 None
Elora 231 4 8 0 None
Highland Rim 524 28 16 2 Grades One and Six

Howell 55 14 2 0 None

Kelso 99 7 4 0 None
Lincoln 257 1 8 0 None
Mulberry 68 24 3 0 None
Petersburg 201 40 6 2 Dept. 6-7-8

Grade One-Now 
Sp. Ed. Higher 
Salary Scale

Taft 143 40 6 1 Grade Four

Vann 83 0 3 0 None

West End 0 196 0 11 2 Ele. 9 HS

Sp. Ed. 66 11 3 1 Ungraded Classes



26b

Interim Earnings —  Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe 
(Exhibit 19)

METROPOLITAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
2601 Bransford A venue 

Nashville-Davidson County, T enn .

August 25, 1966

To W hom I t M ay Concern:

This is to certify that Elvira Smith Rolfe has received 
pay for the year 1966 as follows: Regular Substitute Pay

APPEN DIX F

January $ 17.00 $ 17.00
February 170.00 154.04

March 340.00 300.24

April 136.00 124.80
May 102.00 95.56
June 161.50 151.53

$926.50 $843.17
A fter School Study Center $176.25 $148.70

Yours truly,

/ s /  Mrs. B axter H olley 
Mrs. Baxter Holley 
Payroll Department

BH/mc



27b

Attempts to Secure Employment —
Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles

(Exhibits 17, 20-22)

TENNESSEE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL 
P ost Office B ox 73 

H illsboro, A labama 35643

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL

TELEPHONE 637-8106

August 12, 1966

To Whom It May Concern 
Greetings:

Peebles applied for a teaching position in this school on 
January 10, 1966.

Please be advised that, although impressed with her 
training and experience, we were unable to recommend 
her for employment because we did not have a teaching 
vacancy in her field of major or minor preparation.

Yours very truly,
/ s /  E. S. H ill 

E. S. Hill 
Principal

N otary P ublic Subscribed and sworn to before me this 
15th day of August 1966.

/ s /  James Crawford 
Notary Public

APPENDIX G



28b

Fellowship Day Care Center 
3406 Meridian Street North 
Huntsville, Alabama 
August 15, 1966

Appendix G

To Whom It May Concern 

Greetings:

On February 21, 1966 Mrs. Bernice Peebles applied for a 
position in our Day Care Center for the position of a 
teacher. At the time there was no openings and therefore 
Mrs. Peebles was not employed.

Respectfully Yours,

/ s /  E zekiel B ell

Rev. Ezekiel Bell, Chairman 
Day Care Committee 1965-1966



29b

NORTHROP SPACE LABORATORIES

Northrop Corporation 
6025 Technology Drive, Huntsville, Alabama

P.O. Box 1484

Appendix G

16 August 1966

To W hom I t May Concern :

This is to inform you that Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles ap­
plied at our facilities as to employment opportunities in 
her field on 12 March 1966.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  A. E. B lythe 
A. E. Blythe
Industrial Relations Supervisor

AEB/gh



30b

Appendix G

April 14, 1966

Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles 
105 Wbitney Avenue, N.E.
Huntsville, Alabama

Dear Mrs. Peebles:

Thank you for your application indicating interest in 
employment with IBM Space Systems Center.

Our requirements are limited and we have no opening 
available where your qualifications and interests could be 
best utilized. However, we are retaining your applica­
tion for employment in our files and if we are ever able 
to offer you further encouragement, be assured that we 
will contact you.

Your interest in IBM Huntsville is appreciated, and we 
wish you every success in the future.

ALB :pah

Yery truly yours,

A. L. Bonds, Manager 
Professional Recruiting



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C.<=^His= 219