Materials on 1972-1973 Annual Report Press Conference

    PressRelease B Sap‘ aa 

From: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 
Telephone: 586-8397 

Contact; Betty J. Stebman or Anna C. Frank 

MEMO TO THE EDITOR 

Jack Greenberg, Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund, will hold a press conference on 

Thursday, May 17 at 1l a.m. The meeting will be held at the 

organization's national office, 10 Columbus Circle (20th Floor). 

Mr. Greenberg will present the Legal Defense Fund's 

yearly report on accomplishments in civil rights cases dealing 

with discrimination in education, employment, housing, capital 

punishment and criminal justice. LDF has the largest prison 

reform litigation program in the nation. Although it won the 

U.S. Supreme Court decision which outlawed capital punishment, 

it is still deeply involved in this issue. 

The report will include an assessment of court action 

in New York and other cities relating to discrimination in public 

employment. The Legal Defense Fund has initiated such action 

against the Police, Fire and Sanitation Departments and the 

Board of Education in New York City and other urban centers. 

It intends to intensify this effort. (The quality of civil 

service, LDF contends, is weakened by arbitrary and discriminatory 

(More) 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397 

William T. Coleman, Jr. - President Jack Greenberg - Director-Counsel 

be 



personnel selection, ) 

Mr. Greenberg also will describe current and projected 

efforts to enforce compliance with the 1968 Fair Housing Act. 

It is his view that the Act is relatively unknown and that large- 

scale legal exposure will enhance compliance. The Legal Defense 

ore will intensify legal action in this area through 

its 400 cooperating attorneys -- and through the cooperation of 

fair housing groups in all parts of the country. 

You are cordially invited to cover this meeting. 

Note to Editor: Please bear in mind that LDF is a completely 
separate organization even though we were 
established by the NAACP and those initials 
are retained in our name. Our correct designation 
is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 
frequently shortened to LDF. ee 



PressRelease B ime 

23 4/72 
/6 

From: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 
Telephone: 586-8397 

Contact: Betty J. Stebman or Anna C. Frank 

MEMO TO THE EDITOR 

You are cordially invited to cover two events scheduled 

by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. 

First: Jack Greenberg, LDF's Director-Counsel, will 

hold a press conference on Thursday, May 17 at 11:00 a.m. 

The meeting will be held at the organization's national office, 

10 Columbus Circle (20th floor). 

Mr. Greenberg will present the Legal Defense Fund's yearly 

report on accomplishments in civil rights cases dealing with 

discrimination in education, employment, housing, capital punish- 

ment and criminal justice, and will outline the work of the Fund 

for the next year. 

Second: R. Sargent Shriver, Jr. and Congressman Paul N. 

McCloskey, Jr. will address participants of the 1973 Institute 

of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund at a series of 

six panel meetings concerned with "Human Rights Under Siege." 

The day-long Institute, involving constitutional experts, 

Congressmen and more than 2,000 community leaders, will be held 

at the Hotel Americana on Friday, May 18. 

A corrected program of the Institute proceedings of May 18 

is enclosed. 

ee H 

Note to Editor: Please bear in mind that LDF is a completely 
separate organization even though we were 
established by the NAACP and those initials are 
retained in our name. Our correct designation 
is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
frequently shortened to Legal Defense Fund or LDF 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397 
William T. Coleman, Jr. - President Jack Greenberg - Director-Counsel 



PressRelease B ## 
213 ) Jn is 73 

From: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 
Telephone: 586-8397 

Contact: Betty J. Stebman or Anna C. Frank 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

NEW YORK, N.Y. -- R. Sargent Shriver, Jr. and 

Congressman Paul N. McCloskey, Jr. will address participants 

of the 1973 Institute of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 

Fund at a series of six panel meetings concerned with "Human 

Rights Under Siege." The day-long Institute, involving 

constitutional experts, congressmen and more than 2,000 community 

leaders, will be held at the Hotel Americana on Friday, May 18. 

Representative McCloskey, who cast the only vote 

against President Nixon's nomination at the 1972 Republican 

Convention, will speak on "Congress Under Siege;" and Mr. Shriver, 

who recently served as Ambassador to France, will discuss the 

overall theme, “Human Rights Under Siege." 

Among the panelists will be: Patrick V. Murphy, former 

Police Commissioner of New York City; James Vorenberg, a Harvard 

law professor; Jack B. Weinstein, judge, U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of New York; Simeon Golar, chairman, New York 

City Housing Authority; Joseph L. Rauh, Jr., general counsel, 

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; 

Shirley Chisholm, member of the House of Representatives, 

12th District, New York; Charles Frankel, Columbia University 

(More) 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397 

William T. Coleman, Jr. - President Jack Greenberg - Director-Counsel 



professor and member of the Fleischmann Commissio: Augus 

Hawkins, member of the House of Representatives, 2lst District, 

California. 

The participants also will include William Eng 

a Georgia railway laborer who is suing the Seaboard Coast 

Railroad after being denied promotion to a clerical job 

for whites. He will be joined by Joseph Moody, a Nor 

paper mill worker. Following 24 years of employment as a laborer 

at Albemarle Paper Co., Mr. Moody won a class action case against 

the company for discriminatory practices in job advancement. 

In announcing the Institute proceedings, William T. 

Coleman, Jr., president of the Legal Defense Fund said: 

"We have called this series of meetings on the 19th 

anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision outlawing school 

segregation. On this occasion we have invited specialists in 

housing, employment, education and c inal justice to join with 

Congressional and civic leaders in formulating programs of action 

in areas where minority citizens are endangered." 

Note to Editor: Please bear in mind that LDF is a com 
separate organization even though we 
established by the NAACP and those ini 
are retained in our name. Our correct 
is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational 
frequently shortened to Legal De 

2'
3 



Press Release 
2 

712 
. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

From: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Telephone: 586-8397 

Contact: Betty J. Stebman or Anna C. Frank 

Statement by Jack Greenberg 

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND REPORT 1972-73 

Considerable progress in the battle for equal rights — 

continues to be made in the courts, although the national 

commitment of the 1960's toward improving the conditions of life 

for black Americans seems to be waning, reports Jack Greenberg, 

Director-Counsel of the NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 

This is evidenced by a year of major accomplishments by 

the Legal Defense Fund, the nation's leading civil: rights litigation 

organization, in the following fields: 

EDUCATION 

In the single most sweeping development in school desegrega- 

tion litigation this year, HEW has been forced to start proceedings 

to cut off federal funds from 100 school districts and entities in 

17 states as a result of an LDF suit brought against the Department. 

It had been the government's policy since 1969 to rely almost 

exclusively on voluntary compliance with court-ordered desegregation 

of schools. 

Federal District Judge John H. Pratt, in his opinion, 

contended that the government "has not properly fulfilled its 

obligation" to eliminate school desegregation and charged it with 

"a policy described in another context as one of 'benign neglect.'" 

Supreme Court decisions are awaited in both the Richmond, Va. 

and Denver, Colo. cases which LDF lawyers argued earlier this term. 

Broad implications for the future desegregation of large urban areas, 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397 

William T. Coleman, Jr. - President (More) Jack Greenberg - Director-Counsel 



north and south, can result from these decisions. 

The Legal Defense Fund has over 250 school desegregation and 

related cases at present. 

PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT 

In some 150 private employment cases now pending, LDF attorneys 

are arguing for equal seniority rights for minorities, desegregation 

of job classifications, elimination of white-oriented and non-job- 

related testing practices, plus back pay. 

Armed with an emerging body of law (which the LDF itself has 

played a major role in developing) a smashing number of victories are 

now being enjoyed against company after company. Among these are 

Seaboard Coast Line Railroad, Albemarle Paper Co., U. S. Steel, the 

Duke Power Company. 

Most recent LDF success occured three days ago when the U.S. 

Supreme Court ruled unanimously for our position in McDonnell Douglas 

Corporation v. Green, a case concerning discrimination in the firing 

of a black civil rights protestor. 

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 

Urban police and fire departments are the focal points of an 

entire new area of LDF litigation which emerged during 1972-73. 

This brand new area already has 11 job discrimination cases 

against police departments and three against fire departments. An 

additional 23 active cases are divided against correction departments, 

hospitals, sanitation departments, the U.S. postal service and others. 

Minorities face the same general problems in the PUBLIC 

EMPLOYMENT area as outlined in the PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT litigation area. 

EMPLOYMENT OF BLACK WOMEN 

The Legal Defense Fund has just launched a new Black Women's 

Employment Project which will identify and combat patterns of job 

(More) 



discrimination against black women on a nationwide basis. The 

tH irst case is that of a black woman who seeks to join the California 

state highway patrol. 

PRISON REFORM AND PRISONERS' RIGHTS 

Improvement of jail and prison conditions continued to receive 

primary attention in the LDF's mushrooming PRISON REFORM & PRISONERS' 

RIGHTS area. Twenty-five of the program's 76 currently pending cases 

deal with poor jail conditions. Another eight cases fighting inadequate 

jail conditions were either won or favorably settled during the past 

year. 

Other areas of legal emphasis include unconstitutional 

disciplinary actions against prisoners; first amendment rights such 

as freedom of religious expression; the right to read; petition for 

redress of grievances and to peaceably assemble and organize. 

EQUALIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES 

Citing its 1972 victory in Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, Mississippi, 

the Legal Defense Fund has won several law suits against smaller towns 

for equalization of municipal services such as street paving, lighting, 

and sewerage in black areas with the same services in white areas. 

At the same time, LDF is cooperating with experts to develop statistical 

models that will enable similar suits against larger cities. 

HOUSING 

The 1968 Federal Fair Housing Act provided little meaningful 

xecourse,except through individual lawsuits, to the hundreds of thousands 

of persons suffering racial discrimination in the rental and purchase 

of housing. 



Because of the impossibility of representing so many 

individual cases, LDF filed a series of test cases seeking to 

establish precedents in significant areas. The LDF has now 

begun a sweeping new program to get more action in this field 

during the past year. We are coordinating the efforts of fair 

housing groups throughout the country; disseminating the know-how 

for legal action against unfair housing practices to minority 

individuals; and systematizing a large number of law suits ona 

nationwide basis. 

Our objective has and continues to be the exposure of the 

methods used by realtors to withhold from minorities information 

about the availability of apartments and houses. 

ABUSE OF CITIZENS BY POLICE 

During the year an LDF victory in Providence, R.I. resulted 

in a police agreement to set up a standardized procedure for handling 

citizen complaints. 

The new citizen complaint procedure was termed “unequaled 

in its openness and fairness elsewhere in the United States" by 

Drew S. Days, III, LDF assistant counsel, who expects the case to be 

a prototype for similar suits in other parts of the country. This 

new procedure will give police the chance to "police" themselves. 

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 

LDF has begun legal challenges to new capital punishment laws 

which many states have hastily passed to circumvent the historic 

1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Furman v. Georgia), which capped 

a seven-year LDF campaign to end the death penalty. The Supreme 

Court ruled in Furman that capital punishment as administered was 

"cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of the 8th and 14th 

amendments. Lower courts are rapidly reducing the large backlog of 

death sentences which had been pending since 1967 -- awaiting settlement 

of the constitutional issues raised by LDF. 



Please bear in mind that LDF is a completely 
separate organization even though we were 
established by the NAACP and those initials are 
retained in our name. Our correct designation 

is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 
frequently shortened to LDF. 



a 

Statement by Jack Greenberg, Director-Counsel 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

LDF HOLDS SCHOOL INTEGRATION LINE 

A review of 13 significant school desegregation cases, in 

which Justice Department attorneys argued in the courts against 

the LDF position, reveals considerable progress, despite the chilly 

national climate on efforts to improve the lot of black and poor 

Americans. 

ite LDF attorneys prevailed in 10 cases (33 School Districts 

in Mississippi, Las Vegas, Austin and Corpus Christi, 

Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Nashville, Memphis, 

Augusta, Mobile). 

26 The 3 remaining cases are all on appeal. Denver and 

Richmond are before the Supreme Court and Detroit is 

before the Court of Appeals. 

Some 250 of the more than 1200 cases on the LDF docket deal with 

school desegregation. 

On this, the 19th anniversary of the U. S. Supreme Court's 

historic school desegregation ruling, LDF attorneys are holding the 

line in a national educational emergency with regard to government 

attacks on pupil transportation: a controversy that, under political 

pressures, extended far beyond busing issues to threaten the fate of 

school integration itself. 

The Federal Government appeared as adversary in many of the more 

than 250 cases in which we represent black parents and children. New 

legislation encouraged opening of cases already settled. The unexpected 



Page 2 School Integration 

developments greatly complicated our legal problems. I shall 

report on the background and events during the year in school 

desegregation. LDF victories during the two preceding years, 

especially the Charlotte, North Carolina and Mobile, Alabama cases 

had opened the way to extensive integration. 

The dual school system had been outlawed; the Supreme Court had 

sanctioned busing, quotas, clustering pairing and re-drawing of 

attendance zones to remove "all vestiges of state-imposed segregation." 

Following these decisions, LDF staff and cooperating attorneys 

went into action across the South. 

The results were striking: virtually all districts in North 

Carolina, Florida and Arkansas were completely desegregated by September, 

1972. Most rural areas and small cities in other states changed over 

to unitary, non-racial systems, and about ten large cities began to 

implement excellent desegregation plans. 

During 1972, LDF lawyers were engaged in several other big city 

school cases where new remedies were proposed, especially consolidation 

of city and county, to overcome effects of ghetto isolation. 

In a favorable ruling on January 10, 1972, in the Richmond, 

Virginia case, a Federal District Court ordered the Richmond city 

schools (65% black) to consolidate with those of two suburban counties 

(10% black) to form a new district in which no school is to be more 

than 40% black. The judge accepted LDF's contention that state action 

importantly motivated white flight from the central city to the suburbs 

and hence required an area-wide remedy. The U. S. Court of Appeals for 



Page 3 School Integration 

the Fourth Circuit reversed this finding. However, on January 15, 

1973, the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to review this case. It was 

argued on April 23rd and we are awaiting the Court's decision. 

An interesting and unusual aspect of this case is that the Richmond 

School Board argued with us. The U. S. Justice Department, the 

State Board of Education and the suburban school systems opposed us. 

In the Detroit case, Federal District Judge Stephen J. Roth ruled 

with us that segregation in the city's public schools resulted from 

public policy and ordered integration of inner-city and suburban school 

districts. The Sixth circuit Appeals Court, however, called for a 

second hearing on this case in February 1973, before the Court's full 

roster of nine judges. Decision is awaited. 

In October, we argued the Denver case. It was the first Northern 

school case to reach the U. S. Supreme Court. Issues in the Denver 

case are so complex that the brief and appendix came to 2,100 pages 

and legal printing bills to $35,000. 

As these complicated issues of integration of urban school systems 

were being adjudicated, the U. S. Department of Justice went into 

court on many cases to oppose the black school children we represent. 

(Since the Supreme Court's decision on school segregation in 1954, 

government lawyers had not acted against us in school cases; frequently 

they had supported us.) In the Richmond, Detroit and Denver cases 

and in more than a dozen others we have met Justice Department lawyers 

as adversaries. 

Public clamor against busing led to the passage, last June, of 

the anti-busing amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1972. 



Page 4 School Integration 

This legislation has made it possible to reopen cases decided 

a year or two ago. School Boards may ask the courts to suspend 

orders already in force requiring desegregation. There is now 

the possibility of resegregating schools which black parents have 

fought for years to desegregate. In every such case, our lawyers 

are in the courts fighting to save gains we thought were won for good. 



Statement by Jack Greenberg, Director-Counsel 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

LEGAL PROGRAM TO END JOB DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACK WOMEN 

Announcement of the nation's first national legal program 

addressing itself to the employment problems of black women is 

being made here today. 

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., working 

through its 26 New York attorneys plus about 400 cooperating 

attorneys in the field, will outline a multi-strategy approach 

which will include research, efforts to broaden the vocational 

goals and opportunities of black women, community action, and 

litigation. 

A variety of test cases will be researched, developed and 

filed during the next twelve months. Our San Francisco office has 

already processed its first case and is representing a black woman 

who seeks to join the state highway patrol. 

This unprecedented national project will be administered by the 

Legal Defense Fund's Division of Legal Information and Community 

Service, which recently received a grant of $150,000 from the Ford 

Foundation for the non-litigation aspects of this program. 

This project will build on the experience gained by this 

Division in employment programs in the South during the past six 

years. 



Action Research 

One of our first tasks will be to compile current information 

on the occupational status of black females in America and the 

degree to which it is conditioned by racial and sex discrimination. 

We shall be concerned about patterns of discrimination as evidenced 

in: (1) the exclusion of black women from specific categories of 

employment, occupations or industries, (2) disparities in pay, 

(3) higher rates of turnover, (4) longer periods of unemployment, 

(5) segregation within public agencies or private firms, (6) problems 

of advancement, (7) disparities in the availability of fringe 

benefits, etc. 

We shall be interested in comparing the occupational status of 

black females with that of white males, white females and black males 

and in reviewing geographical differences. We plan to involve black 

women in this national assessment which will include a review of 

existing literature, interviews with knowledgeable persons and 

consultations. 

Staffing 

The critical areas of research and community education will 

be under the direction of Jean Fairfax, the Director of the Division 

of Legal Information and Community Service. We also today announce 

the appointment to this program of Marilyn Holifield, an Assistant 

Counsel at the LDF national office, who will be responsible for the 

legal aspects of this program. Miss Holifield, a graduate of Harvard 

Law School, joined our staff last September and has been doing 

preliminary work on this project since that time. 



We have already consulted with, and have enlisted the 

cooperation of staff members of the Urban Institute in Washington, 

D. C.; Dr. Phyllis Wallace at the Metropolitan Applied Research 

Center in New York City, and Dr. Jacquelyne Jackson of Duke 

University. 

Action Program 

As a result of our preliminary investigations, we are 

convinced that our action program should include at least: 

1. A Public Employment Thrust 

2. A Private Employment Thrust 

3. Monitoring Federal Programs 

4. Challenging discrimination in Training 

5. Consciousness-Raising Among Black Women 

6. Training Paraprofessionals to Provide Technical 

Assistance to Black Women as They Challenge Discrimination 

in Employment 

7. Organization of Action Groups 



Y 

May 8, 1973 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: William Robinson 
Norman Chachkin 
Drew Days 

Stanley Bass 

Jack Himmelstein 
Sylvia Drew 

From: Jack Greenberg 

I am calling a press conference for 11 a.m. on Thursday, 

May 17th, to report on last year's accomplishments and plans for the 

coming year. I hope you will be able to join me and will be prepared 

to answer questions from the press directed to your area of expertise. 

Will you please let me know if you will be available? 

For the first time, LDF has a National Campaign Chairman. 

Bill DeWind has agreed to head our 1973 campaign for $5,000,000. You 

may have seen the announcement in the New York Times last Friday. 

I hope Bill will be able to be with us at the press conference. 



PRISON REFORM & PRISONERS' RIGHTS 

Program Director: 
Stanley A, Bass 
Assistant Counsel 

Lawsuits seeking improvement of jail and prison conditions 

throughout the country continued to be the largest category of 

cases handled during the last year by the prison reform litigation 

program of the Legal Defense Fund. 

JAIL CONDITIONS 

Twenty-five of the program's 76 currently pending cases have 

to do with poor jail conditions. Eight cases on jail conditions 

were either won or favorably settled during the year. 

To the layman, 25 casesmight not seem like many. However, one 

case might improve the condition of hundreds of prisoners in a single 

institution. Furthermore, it should be remembered that LDF must turn 

down many of the cases which they are asked to take and carefully 

select those which they expect can provide significant legal precedents. 

The 1970 National Jail Census of the Department of Justice reported 

there were 3,319 local jails in the United States. Stanley A. Bass, 

who heads the prison reform program of LDF, recently said a legal 

challenge to improve conditions could be filed against every jail. 



Bass cited some of the following statistics from the National 

Jail Census: 

--86 per cent have no facilities for exercise or other 

recreation for inmates. 

--nearly 90 per cent have no educational facilities. 

--one out of four has no visiting facility. 

--47 jails, or 1.4 per cent, have no operating flush toilet. 

--the 3,319 jails have nearly 100,000 cells. 

The size of the problem can easily be seen. Bass suggested that 

statewide application of decisions with statewide control and inspection 

may be the eventual answer. 

Among the decisions for improving jail conditions won by LDF in 

the last year were cases affecting the jails of Toledo, Milwaukee, 

Dallas, and Baltimore. 

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS 

Another significant area of prison reform litigation involves 

unconstitutional disciplinary actions against prisoners. LDF is 

currently handling 10 cases on this subject, seeking to establish 

basic procedural due process safeguards before prisoners can be 

placed in solitary confinement or deprived of "good time." 

Six cases in which prisoners complained of unconstitutional 

disciplinary actions were won by LDF during the last year. 

One of the six cases was Sands v. Wainwright, which originated 

in Florida. It is one of the most far-reaching federal decisions 

mandating the establishment of specific procedural safeguards in 

internal prison disciplinary proceedings. The state appealed. one 

Practice which is now being challenged by five LDF cases is that of 

transferring prisoners to other institutions far away from home, often 

in other states, thus restricting visits by family or lawyers. 



"FIRST AMENDMENT" PRISONER RIGHTS 

In recent years courts have more and more required prison 

officials to prove the necessity for any restrictions on prisoners 

which limit freedom of religion and expression, the right to read, 

to petition for redress of grievances, and to peaceably assemble 

and organize. These and similar rights fall within the area of the 

First Amendment. 

Helping to set this trend, the Legal Defense Fund's prison 

reform program now has a large number of such cases, ranging from 

mail censorship to restrictions on reading material or on access to 

members of the press. 

Currently there are 17 pending cases in this area. They are 

divided as follows: 3 on mail restrictions; 4 on reading materials; 

2 on voting rights; 5 on access to the press, and 1 each on 

prisoners' writings, religious freedom, and unionizing. 

PAROLE 

The Legal Defense Fund has also begun to bring cases charging 

the arbitrary denial of parole. One such case involves a black 

federal prisoner who'’claims that he was denied parole for discriminatory 

reasons. The other cases challenge the refusal of parole boards to 

give reasons for denying parole. 

A number of other cases handled by the prison litigation program 

do not fall in any general category. One new case is Beyer v. Henderson 

which challenges a New York State prison regulation prohibiting 

prisoners from opening savings accounts in amounts less than $500. 

There are still other cases dealing with segregation, health facilities, 

access to counsel, jailing of the indigent for lack of money to pay 



Page 4 PRISON REFORM & PRISONERS' RIGHTS 

fines or bail, and pre-trial confinement. Yet other cases deal with 

the voting rights of prisoners, both for pre-trial detainees as well as 

for those already convicted. Cases also on the docket seek the right 

of political candidates to visit prisoners. 

FINDING LOCAL LAWYERS 

Since the prison reform program of LDF has a staff of only 

three to four lawyers, it must rely on cooperating local lawyers 

throughout the country.to participate in its cases. 

To promote knowledge of the program among lawyers, members of 

the staff participated in a Prisoners’ Rights Seminar in October- 

December, 1972. A two-volume handbook on Prisoners' Rights resulted 

from the seminar. It has articles by LDF Assistant Counsels Stanley 

A. Bass and William B. Turner. 



EQUALIZATION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES 

Program Director: 
Jonathan Shapiro 
Assistant Counsel 

The Legal Defense Fund is making plans to sue large cities 

to equalize municipal services, such as street paving, lighting 

and sewerage, in ghetto areas with those in non-ghetto areas. 

A landmark suit on equalizing municipal services was won last 

year by LDF in the small town of Shaw, Miss. There it was easier 

than it will be in large cities to gather evidence of discrimination 

against black citizens in the providing of municipal services. 

The victory in Hawkins v. Town of Shaw applies equally well 

to any size city, but the gathering of the facts to prove the 

discrimination in a city the size of New York or Milwaukee is 

another story. LDF plans to solve the problem with statistics. 

Statistical sampling models are now being developed by LDF. 

In cooperation with experts in statistics, LDF is presently analyzing 

the provision of municipal services and facilities in two medium-sized 

cities, one in Mississippi and one in Texas. 



When the statistical analyses are completed, LDF plans to file 

lawsuits which will rely almost entirely upon a statistical sample 

to supply the evidence for a finding of racial discrimination. 

Meanwhile, LDF is going ahead with lawsuits in smaller towns, 

cities, and counties. LDF attorneys have filed and participated 

in municipal equalization lawsuits in states as far apart as Florida 

and South Dakota, on behalf of Indians as well as blacks. They have 

already negotiated favorable settlement of cases in Mississippi, 

Virginia and Florida. 

In Fairfax County, Va-, for example, county authorities decided 

to settle out of court an LDF suit requesting street paving in 

sections of the county where black people live. The county planned 

to spend over $1 million to pave 89 streets. 

Although LDF has a relatively small staff of lawyers, rc 

cooperates with more than 400 lawyers throughout the country on a 

wide variety of civil rights lawsuits. Thus it will provide legal 

and technical assistance to lawyers in the field for the preparation 

and conduct of municipal equalization lawsuits. 

The decision in the case of Hawkins v. Town of Shaw, Mississippi, 

was handed down on March 27, 1972, by an en banc panel of 16 judges 

of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The decision culminated 

a five-year legal struggle by LDF to establish the principle that 

equality in the provision of municipal services was constitutionally 

required to the same extent as equality in education, employment, 

voting and public accommodations. 



ye Mus we 

The court's opinion held that it was not necessary to prove 

that the municipal officials had intentionally or deliberately 

discriminated against the blacks. It ruled that once it is established 

that services and facilities for the blacks are inferior to those 

provided for whites, then it is up to the officials to show some 

compelling interest which requires such inequality. 

Some legal questions about municipal equalization of services 

for minorities and whites are still unresolved. For example, what 

standard of equality is appropriate? Are municipal officials merely 

required to spend the same amount of money in minority areas as in 

white areas? Or, are they required to achieve the same results in 

minority areas as achieved in white areas, regardless of how much 

money it takes? This is especially significant in large urban centers 

where the problems to be overcome in ghetto areas to achieve a 

certain level of service are far greater than those in white areas. 



HOUSING 

Program Director 
R. Sylvia Drew 
Assistant Counsel 

Despite the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, the struggle 

to combat discrimination in the sale and rental of housing has had 

little impact on where members of minority groups can live. 

Under the Act, victims of discrimination have virtually no 

meaningful and immediate recourse except in individual suits. The 

Legal Defense Fund, recognizing the impossibility of individually 

representing the hundreds of thousands of persons suffering such 

discrimination, acted on a broader level, filing a series of test 

cases throughout the country seeking to establish precedents in 

significant areas. However, despite its work and that of other 

organizations since the 1968 Act, little progress has been made 

in eliminating discriminatory practices in the housing market. 

Last fall LDF decided it had to launch a comprehensive assault 

on the problem with a sweeping new program. 



HOUSING Page 2 

Its first aim is to disseminate the facts. 

Clearly, few blacks and other minorities know what their 

rights are under the 1968 statute. They do not know the avenues 

of redress open to an individual victimized by racial discrimination. 

Many do not know what in fact constitutes discrimination under the 

law. Information on the availability of apartments and houses has 

been shrewdly withheld. Realtors in places surrounding metropolitan 

areas advertise in journals exclusively read in white suburban areas 

rather than the inner city core. Black realtors have been systematically 

excluded from multiple listing services which jointly compile listings 

of all available housing. 

The problem is compounded by some black realtors who are 

themselves unwilling to join these associations for fear of losing 

their own monopoly on the black real estate market. A large number 

of suits instituted under the 1968 statute have been settled by 

realtors out of court, thus avoiding undue publicity. Although the 

outcome may have been beneficial to the individual, it failed to 

alert the community to the fact that a realtor's property was open to 

all. 

There is also widespread lack of information among minorities 

concerning technical aspects of the purchasing process which renders 

them more vulnerable to discrimination in such areas as financing-- 

loans, mortgages, and so forth. 



page 3 HOUSING 

The Legal Defense Fund is beginning to coordinate diverse 

groups struggling independently to achieve fair housing and to 

coordinate its own efforts to file a large number of suits either 

directly or through its cooperating attorneys in systematic fashion 

across the country. 

The program began with an LDF Lawyer Training Institute at 

Airlie House in Warrenton, Va., on October 28, 1972, at which 

representatives of the Justice Department, the Housing and Urban 

Development Department, the National Committee against Discrimination 

in Housing and the Housing Opportunities Council were present. 

Assistant Counsel Sylvia Drew is coordinating the program. Its 

aim is to enable individuals to fight discriminatory practices on a 

one-to-one basis--complainant vs. realtor. Some important issues have 

already surfaced. 

In Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., a California 

suit in which LDF filed an amicus curiae brief, the United States 

Supreme Court recently held that whites as well as blacks have standing 

to challenge discriminatory rental policies of a realtor. This ruling 

can proliferate the number of fair housing suits brought in all-white 

areas where current tenants are the only persons with requisite facts 

about the discriminatory practices of the landlord. 

LDF recently filed (with Milwaukee Legal Service attorneys) a 

petition for certiorari in the U. S. Supreme Court in Rogers v. 

Loether, seeking to overturn a lower court decision which found a 

right to jury trial in fair housing suits. A jury requirement would 

not only slow down judicial redress but would also expose complainants 

to a cross-section of the community which supports rather than opposes 

racial and ethnic isolation. 



Page 4 HOUSING 

The rights provided by the Fair Housing Act will be entirely 

destroyed by imposition of a jury trial, where none is called for 

in the statute itself. 

In another LDF case, Sherman v. Blair Gibson Realty, a North 

Carolina state realtors licensing board suspended a discriminating 

realtor's license for sixty days. Yet another LDF federal suit in 

Mississippi, Dennis v. Bethune seeks similar relief. 

LDF's California office is about to file suit to enjoin use of 

exclusively white models in advertising new apartment developments. 

These and many other cases presently being planned promise to 

make fair housing a crucial area of LDF litigation for the foreseeable 

future and should significantly accelerate the movement to end 

discrimination in the sale and rental of housing. 



POLICE ABUSE 

Program Director 
Drew S. Days, III 

Assistant Counsel 

Settlement of a recent court case involving alleged police 

abuse of black citizens in Providence, R. I., may provide a prototype 

for forcing police to police themselves in cities throughout the country. 

Legal Defense Fund lawyers representing a group of black citizens 

believe the settlement establishes an administrative procedure for 

handling citizen complaints "unequaled in its openness and fairness 

elsewhere in the United States." 

The lawsuit, Coalition of Black Leadership v. Doorley, alleged 

a pattern and practice of police misconduct and a failure on the part 

of officials to curb such misconduct. The settlement was reached 

March 27th of this year after 30 days of trial last summer and fall. 

"This suit proved to our satisfaction," said Drew S. Days, III, 

who handles the LDF police abuse program, "that communities would 

respond favorably to litigation efforts designed to reform police 

practices." 



Page 2 POLICE ABUSE OF CITIZENS 

Another suit patterned after the Providence complaint has been 

filed against the police department of Prince George's County, Md., 

and LDF is contemplating three similar lawsuits in Florida, Georgia, 

and New York State. LDF feels this type of case could be filed in 

almost every city in the country. With few exceptions, police 

departments either have no formal procedures for handling citizen 

complaints or fail to abide by such procedures in order to shield 

their men from public criticism and scrutiny. 

The Providence settlement requires the police to make available 

uniform citizen complaint forms and to follow a standardized procedure 

of handling complaints and holding hearings, with final decision on 

each case to be made by the police chief. Provisions are made for 

keeping the citizen informed of steps taken along the way, and a 

public record of the hearings must be kept on file for two years. The 

department must provide policemen with recognizable identification 

numbers to be worn on their left chests. It must also maintain a 

photographic file of officers from which citizens with complaints of 

brutality can identify policemen. 

The agreement by the Providence police to police themselves may 

provide a workable alternative to the concept of civilian review 

boards which were proposed in New York and other cities during the 

1960's but were nearly all defeated in public referenda. According 

to LDF lawyers, the systematic procedure for handling citizen complaints, 

will give the police a chance to prove what the police are always saying, 

that they can be responsive to the community and can control brutality 

against citizens without outside control. 



Page 3 POLICE ABUSE Of CiULZENS 

Another effect of legal actions being patterned after the 

Providence case is the education of the community at large about 

police abuse. The trial in Providence required 30 days, lasting 

over nearly three months and was fully covered in the local press. 

There were 72 witnesses and 105 exhibits for the citizens' group and 

76 witnesses and 57 exhibits for the police. The police were accused 

of 23 instances of brutality or the use of racial insults; the police 

denied virtually every charge. 

One of the city's two black councilmen testified that he was 

jabbed in the stomach with a nightstick during a disturbance. The 

policemen testified that the councilman "walked against" the nightstick 

and did not identify himself as a councilman. The federal judge, in 

announcing the eventual agreement, said the out-of-court settlement 

between the two sides was preferable to labeling either side right 

or wrong. 

The Providence Journal editorialized: "Now there is hope of 

improved relations where previously there was little. Now there is 

a plan for the fair resolution of legitimate complaints where once all 

police disciplinary matters were settled behind closed doors." 

LETHAL FORCE BY POLICE 

The Legal Defense Fund this year filed a third lawsuit challenging 

the use of lethal force by Memphis police in situations where non-lethal 

force would suffice to apprehend or subdue alleged criminals. 

Challenges in two previous Memphis cases filed in 1971 were lost 

in the courts. Both involved the fatal shooting of fleeing suspects 

by police using a pump shotgun, which is standard equipment in Memphis 

patrol cars. 



Page 4 POLICE ABUSE OF CITIZENS 

LDF estimates there are about 10 deaths each year in Memphis 

as a result of the use of unnecessary lethal force by police. 

The present suit, Wiley v. City of Memphis, involves not only 

the question of unnecessary lethal force but the legal obstacles 

faced by citizens in obtaining damages based upon police misconduct. 

Under federal law, state and local governments are immune to suits 

for damages based upon police misconduct. LDF is challenging this 

sovereign immunity in the federal courts. 

Another challenge in Wiley v. City of Memphis is for the right 

to hold supervisory police and municipal officials liable for the 

acts of their subordinates. Previously, it has been almost impossible 

to win damages against supervisory officials, even if subordinates 

could be shown to be incompetent, poorly trained, or poorly supervised. 

In this case the judge has allowed the suing of the mayor, former 

mayor, and police officials, but not the city or police department. 

LDF is participating in two other pending cases which raise 

the issue of the liability of superior police officials. These are 

Jeter v. Powell, a damage suit against the Sheriff's Department of 

Richland County in Columbia, S. C., and Reid v- Hearn, a similar suit 

in North Carolina. 



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 

Program Director: 
Jack H. Himmelstein 
Assistant Counsel 

The Legal Defense Fund is now waging what might be called its 

"Second War Against Capital Punishment." 

Victory Day in its "first war" was June 29, 1972. On that day 

the U.S. Supreme Court decided, 5 to 4, the historic case of Furman 

v. Georgia, which virtually wiped out capital punishment in the 

United States as administered at that time. The court ruled that 

“the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases 

constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth 

and Fourteenth Amendments." 

In spite of the broad sweep of the Furman decision, several 

state legislatures have responded by trying to reinstitute the death 

penalty. Less than a year after the decision new capital punishment 

laws have been enacted by Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, 

Ohio, Nebraska, New Mexico and Utah. 



Page 2 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 

Prior to Furman v. Georgia, capital punishment provisions 

left to judge or jury the decision which persons will be, or will 

not be, sentenced to the death penalty after having been convicted 

of a capital crime. The majority Justices, noting the rarity, 

infrequency and arbitrariness that marked capital punishment under 

this procedure, struck down the death penalty. 

The new laws attempt to get around this ruling by taking the 

death-sentencing away from the judge or jury and making the death 

penalty mandatory for particular crimes, or setting specific 

guidelines or standards which the judge or jury must follow in 

arriving at the death sentence. But similar capital punishment 

provisions have existed before in the country, and the evidence 

indicates that they did not protect against the vices inherent 

in the institution of the death penalty: arbitrariness and 

discrimination. 

LDF is participating in challenges to new death penalty laws 

in Florida and Georgia. In these and other legal attacks, the 

legal arguments on this issue will vary with differences in the 

statutes of the various states. 

In addition to challenging new death penalties in the courts, 

LDF sponsored a conference in October, 1972, of about two dozen 

leading social scientists, for discussion of the consequences of 

the Furman v._Georgia decision. These scientists are experts in fields 



Page 3 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 

related to corrections and administration of criminal justice. 

LDF expects that social science research will provide further 

evidence to be used in legal arguments against the new wave of 

capital punishment laws. 

HOLDOVER "DEATH ROW" CASES 

Of the 631 death sentences pending last June, a total of 

120 were set aside by the U.S. Supreme Court on the day of the 

Furman decision: a summary overturning of 117 other death sentence 

cases that were awaiting hearings before it and the same ruling 

applied to the two cases which had been combined with the Furman 

case. 

The highest courts of 27 states so far have applied the Furman 

decision to overturn state laws where the law allowed judge or jury 

a free choice in deciding whether or not to impose the death sentence 

after conviction. Decisions are pending in the highest courts of 

Colorado, Kansas, New York, Utah, and the First Circuit Court of 

Appeals (District of Columbia). LDF staff attorneys or cooperating 

attorneys continue to spearhead the legal challenges which seek to 

apply the Furman decision to such state laws. 



Page 4 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT 

Because reversal of all death sentences in the various states 

was not automatic upon the initial state supreme court decisions 

applying the Furman decision, the legal task of LDF has included 

securing the setting aside of each and every death sentence. 

About 160 death sentences remain to be set aside out of 

the backlog of 631 death sentences that were pending last June 29th, 

when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against capital punishment in the 

case of Furman v. Georgia. The Legal Defense Fund is working to 

assure that all such death sentences are set aside. 

The last execution in the United States was on June 2, 1967. 

Since that time all executions were halted by the constitutional 

challenge to capital punishment brought by LDF attorneys. 

Judges in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Georgia and Utah continued 

to hand down death sentences under statutes of the type held uncon- 

stitutional by the Furman decision. LDF has taken action to assure 

that death sentences will not be imposed in such cases, or, if so, 

will be overturned on appeal. 



PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT 

Program Director: 
William L. Robinson 
First Assistant Counsel 

The thrust of the Legal Defense Fund's long legal battle against 

discrimination by private industry employers has now shifted from its 

earlier build-up of procedural law to a smashing onslaught against 

one company after another. 

Armed with strong legal weaponry it helped develop since the 

1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, the Legal Defense Fund is winning 

court cases ordering equal seniority rights for minorities, desegregation 

of job classifications, elimination of white-oriented and non-job-related 

testing practices, and back pay to whole classes of minority workers 

that have been illegally discriminated against. 

The Seaboard Coast Line Railroad surrendered after a brief four 

days' trial last January. It unilaterally announced a plan for 

seniority system reform. The evidence presented by LDF on behalf of 

a black laborer showed that 80 per cent of Seaboard laborers were 

black and 100 per cent of its clerical help was white. 



+ 

Page 2 PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT 

The Norfolk and Western Railroad was ordered to merge segregated 

seniority rosters that have been under attack since 1918. Blacks were 

able to retain their seniority in the merged roster. They were also 

allowed to transfer to previously all-white job categories. The 

evidence showed that black brakemen had routinely been assigned to the 

coal yard while white brakemen were assigned to the easier, better-paid 

freight yard. Blacks were restricted to carman and brakeman jobs 

while whites received switchman and conductor jobs. 

LDF won a sweeping decision over the Albemarle Paper Co. The 

court declared the hiring and promotion tests of the company were 

invalid and discriminatory; ruled its transfer and promotion policies 

unlawful, and ordered the award of back pay to the plaintiff and 

members of his class of black employees. 

U. S. Steel was ordered early this month to restructure the 

lines of progression for workers in its Fairfield Works at Birmingham, 

Ala., and to begin a plant-wide seniority system. Evidence showed the 

company to have followed a practice of assigning black workers to 

dirtier, lower-paying, menial jobs in the hottest areas of the steel 

works. Plaintiffs in three LDF cases against the company won back pay. 

Unions are often co-defendants along with the company in these 

suits. 

The number of pending LDF cases of this type has increased from 

about 100 a year ago to about 150 at present. During the last year 

LDF handled, on the average, one of these trials per month, compared 

with a total of only three trials during the preceding year. The 

number of trials is expected to increase. 



Page 3 PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT 

LDF's current judicial successes rest on a series of favorable 

court decisions dating back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. One of 

the most significant was the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Griggs 

v. Duke Power Co. Chief Justice Burger authored a unanimous decision 

invalidating tests for employment that had discriminatory effects, 

unless those tests could be proved to be either job related or a 

business necessity. 

Two recent decisions (Moody v. Albemarle Paper Co. and King v. 

Georgia Power Co.) virtually ruled out tests as a method of discrimination. 

They held that companies must show a statistical correlation between 

performances on a test and on the job in accordance with the rigorous 

professional standards accepted by the American Psychiatric Association. 

Other court decisions have firmly established that back pay is 

a remedy to a group of employees who have been the victims of job 

discrimination. This means that companies with racially discriminatory 

policies can be faced with the payment of large monetary awards. 



PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT 

Program Director: 
Jeffry A. Mintz 
Assistant Counsel 

Urban police and fire departments have become the focal 

point of a broad-scale legal challenge by the Legal Defense Fund. 

More than half of LDF's current lawsuits in the field of 

public employment discrimination are against police and fire departments 

in cities scattered across the nation. 

Typical of the lawsuits is a case in which the Shield Club, 

a black policemen's organization, won a victory last December 

over the city of Cleveland, Ohio. At that time only 9 per cent 

of the Cleveland police force was black, while nearly 40 per cent 

of the total population was black. AU. S. district judge ruled that 

the police entrance examination had a "racially discriminatory impact" 

and ordered that 18 per cent of 188 new policemen then being hired must 

be black or Hispanic. He barred further use of the examination 

results until an expert study could be made on whether the test 

questions are related to the job of a policeman. 

In a companion case, the Cleveland Fire Department, which had used 

the same examination, was ordered to hire 18 per cent blacks in its 

next class of fire-fighters. Only 4 per cent of firemen in the 

department were black at the time. 



Page 2 

The Legal Defense Fund presently is working on 11 employment 

discrimination cases against police departments and 3 against fire 

departments. The rest of its 23 active cases in this area are 

divided against corrections departments, hospitals, sanitation 

departments, U. S. postal service, all agencies of a city or 

county, and an Air Force base. 

The police employment cases originate in Augusta, Ga.; Mobile, 

Anniston, and Gadsden, Alabama; Jackson, Miss.; Newark, N. J.; New 

York City; Suffolk County, N. Y¥.; Minneapolis, and New Orleans. Some 

aspects of the Cleveland police case are still pending. 

LDF expects to bring an increasing number of public job 

discrimination lawsuits within the next few years as a result of 

two landmark court decisions it won. The first was in private 

industry but has application to public employment. Early in 1971 the 

U. S. Supreme Court ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. that tests for 

hiring and promotion must be job-related. 

The second landmark was Chance v. New York City Board of Examiners. 

This decision restrained further use of the examinations for selecting 

New York City public school principals which had resulted in the hiring 

of only 11 blacks out of 1,000 principals. 

Although LDF is concerned about discrimination in all types of 

public employment, it has singled out police and fire departments 

because: 1) it has received far more requests for help from black 

policemen, firemen, and rejected applicants for those two departments 

than from other branches of civil service, and 2) service agencies 

such as police and fire departments have more direct contact with the 

public and should have priority because the exclusion of blacks and 

Puerto Ricans hinders the proper functioning of these agencies in 

oe wi it i J puerto Rican populations. 



Page 3 

Also, employment discrimination is worse in police and fire 

departments than anywhere else in state and local governments, according 

to findings of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights. 

The following statistics assembled by LDF illustrate the degree 

to which minority citizens are barred from the two services of 

government which have the most sensitive relationship to the minority 

community. The 350-man police force of Jackson, Miss., includes one 

black; in New York City, black and Hispanic officers make up only 8.9 

per cent of the force; Newark, N. J., with a population which is 75 

per cent black and Hispanic has 210 minority officers out of 1,450. 

Promotions also are subject to discrimination. Exactly 1 per 

cent of New York City's police captains are black. Mobile's black 

"Policeman of the Year" could not make sergeant, and only one black 

has passed the test to advance beyond patrolman. New Orleans has 

promoted only seven blacks to sergeant out of 116, and all are 

Patrol Sergeants, not one is a Desk Sergeant. 

The proportion of minority citizens hired and promoted in fire 

departments is uniformly smaller than in police departments. In Newark 

blacks and Hispanics make up 5 per cent of the fire department, 15 per 

cent of the police department. In Cleveland, until recently, the 

percentages were 4 per cent black firemen, 9 per cent black policemen. 

In New Orleans, 9 out of 1,000 firemen are black, compared with 90 

black policemen out of 1,300. 

DISCRIMINATORY TESTS 

Tests have been found to be the major obstacle to minority 

employment and advancement in police and fire departments as well 

as in other areas of civil service. In studying current civil service 

examinations LDF has drawn the following conclusions: 



Page 4 

1) Tests tend to measure pen-and-pencil skills and test-taking 

experience and ability instead of the qualities required for the job. 

2) Tests for police and fire departments are neither uniform 

nor scientific. They may be purchased from commercial or cooperative 

agencies or be commissioned from a local psychologist. They tend to 

have more frivolous and obscure questions than tests used by industry. 

A Boston police test asked for a definition of "R.S.V.P." A New York 

fireman's test asked: "The fireman climbed the ladder with agility. 

Define agility." 

3) Tests often exclude the persons best qualified for the job. 

Test-taking ability is not gained easily in ghetto homes or schools. 

Yet, ability to understand and gain the confidence of the inner-city 

poor is likely to be found among those from the ghetto. Good judgment, 

self-reliance and compassion--more essential than verbal skills for 

a city policeman--must be evaluated in ways other than traditional 

"intelligence" tests. 

The Legal Defense Fund has commissioned Dr. Richard Barrett, a 

highly qualified psychologist, to survey current efforts to develop 

valid tests, including those of the International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, the Industrial Relations Center at the University of Chicago, 

and a study at Marquette University financed by the Law Enforcement 

Assistance Administration. LDF expects Dr. Barrett's investigation 

to help establish appropriate standards for selecting police officers. 

One point frequently stressed by LDF in its public employment 

litigation program is that it is not opposed to the civil service merit 

system or to tests, so long as they are really valid tests that measure 

the capacity of the candidate to do the job. The judges who have ruled 

with LDF have also recognized this need and ordered that steps be taken 

to establish valid job-related tests. 



2 

May 10, 1973 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Bill DeWind 

FROM: Betty Stebman 

Welcome home! 

Is there any chance that you can join Jack at a press conference 

in the library at 10 Columbus Circle on Thursday, May 17 at 11 a.m.? We are 

trying to get some coverage on a report of last year's work and on where we 

are heading this year. A few words from you at the beginning of the conference 

would be most useful. Something of this sort: 

The Legal Defense Fund is the permanent Justice Department 

for the black and the poor -- it keeps moving forward regardless 
of which party is in power. Since 1969, however, it has been in the 
unusual position of often having to face the United States Department 
of Justice as an adversary rather than as a champion of the constitu- 
tional rights of American citizens. It has had to spend considerably 
more money in recent years, not only because its program has been 

widening and deepening, but also because the government's opposition 
has meant a great deal of extra time and effort from the lawyers. 
Fortunately, additional support from Americans across the country has 
been forthcoming. In 1968 the Legal Defense Fund raised $2,887,688 

and last year it raised $4,218,255. This year we will have to have 
even more money. We need $5,000,000 -- $3,500,000 of that is required 

for the legal programs, many of which should be the work of the Justice 

Department. And $1,500,000 for The Earl Warren Legal Training Program 

which is significantly helping to increase the number of blacks in the 
legal profession. You are probably aware that blacks are barely one 

percent of the lawyers in this nation. 

Only if it is not too difficult for you to get to this press 
conference will we look for you. If it presents any kind of a problem to you, 

forget it. 



MEMORANDUM 

TO: Betty Stebman DATE: May 14, 1973 

FROM: Jean Fairfax 

RE: PRESS CONFERENCE 

What about the following? 

LDF announces the Black Women's Employment Project which has 
been launched with a two-year grant from the Ford Foundation. 

This national program will identify and combat patterns of 
discrimination which circumscribe black women as they seek 
their rightful place in the world of work. It will focus on 
key employers, private and public with documented practices 
of discrimination, such as refusal to work, assign and/or 
promote black women, unequal pay for equal work, inequities in 
fringe benefits, etc. 

A westcoast regional office has been opened in San Francisco 
under Ms. Anne T. Chiarenza. This office has already processed 
its first case and is representing a black woman who seeks to 
join the State highway patrol. 

Public utilities firms will be major targets. The first project 
office has been opened in Atlanta and will initially concentrate 
on challenging sex/race discrimination in the Georgia Power 
company. 

JF/n1 

Dictated but not read. 



SUPREME COURT CASES -- PRESENT TERM 

Waiting for Decisions: 

Denver 

Richmond 

New York Voting 

Norwood v. Harris - Text books, private schools in Miss. 

Won: 

McDonnell Douglas v. Green 

Mourning v. Family Publications 

Hensley v. Santa Clara Municipal Court 

Ham v. South Carolina 

Lost: 

Neil v. Biggers 

Oswald v. Rodriguez 



» 

May 17 PRESS CONFERENCE 

ATTENDED BY: 

JUANITA SMITH 

BILL DIEHL 

SHARON JOINER 

MR. MORGENTHALER 

FARNSWORTH FOWLE 

HUGH WYATT 

BARBARA REHN 

MARGARET SLOAN 

CURT CLEMONS 

NYC RADIO 

ABC RADIO (tape recorder) 

N.Y. POST 

AP 

NY TIMES 

DAILY NEWS 

UPI 

MS 

WWRL 



Materials in re. Press conference ]7 May, ]973--]972-3 Annual 
Report, Institute Meeting ]973 Announced 

]. Announcement of press conference--Presentation of Report 

lb. Announcement of Conference/Institute program 
Ic. Institute Program. 

2. Memo 5/8/73 J. Greenberg to various staff--attend press 
conference to field questions 

2a. Prison Reform and Prisoners' rights 
2b. Equalization of Municipal Services 
2c. Housing 5 

2d. Police Abuse; .--Review of work by 

2e. Capital Punishment - appropriate LDF 
2£. Private employment . staff 

2g. Public employment 3 

3. Memo 5/ ]0: B. Stebman-Bill DeWind requests he attend 

p.c. and make statement on fund drive 

4. Memo 5/]4: J. Pairfax-B. Stebman re announcement of 

Black Women's Employment Project at 5/]7 p.c. 
n.d. Supreme Court Cases present term--waiting for de- 

cision, won, lost--preparation for JG statement? 
6. May 17 p.c. attendance list (press rep's) 
7. Statement by J.Greenberg at 5/]7 Press Conference--Report 

for 1972-3 
8. Statement by JG on school integration 
9. Statement by JG on job discrimination agains 

women. 
black