Thurgood Marshall disclosed today that a lawsuit involving Greenville, S.C. airport…

Press Release
October 30, 1959

Thurgood Marshall disclosed today that a lawsuit involving Greenville, S.C. airport… preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Loose Pages. Thurgood Marshall disclosed today that a lawsuit involving Greenville, S.C. airport…, 1959. bbc7417b-bc92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b166157e-45d0-4823-b41f-9654014420ab/thurgood-marshall-disclosed-today-that-a-lawsuit-involving-greenville-sc-airport. Accessed May 20, 2025.

    Copied!

    press RELEASE @ @ 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE «+ NEW YORK 19,N.Y. © JUdson 6-8397 

DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS SS THURGOOD MARSHALL 
President Director-Counsel 

NEW YORK, Friday, Oct. 30.--Thurgood Marshall disclosed today 

that a lawsuit involving the Greenville, S. C. airport is currently 

pending in a federal court. 

The Greenville airport is where Jackie Robinson and a party of 

NAACP leaders were recently threatened with jail sentences for sitting 

in the waiting room. 

Mr. Marshall, who is director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense 

and Educational Fund, Inc., said the case against the airport author- 

ities originated on November 7, 1958, when a Negro air force public 

relations man, Richard Henry, was not permitted to sit in the white 

waiting room at the Greenville airport while waiting for a flight to 

Detroit. Mr. Henry was returning to headquarters after having covered 

an extensive air force maneuver near Greenville. 

In mid-September of this year District Judge George Bell 

Timmerman ruled against Mr. Henry. The case was then appealed to the 

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 24 by NAACP Legal Defense 

Fund attorneys. It is now awaiting hearing. 

Mr. Marshall, in reply to questions regarding possible legal 

action that might be taken by Jackie Robinson, revealed that the issues 

in the Henry case are essentially the same as in Mr. Robinson's situa 

tion. 

The famed civil rights attorney also revealed that four discrimi 

nation cases were heard Tuesday in the federal court in Greensboro, 

N. C. Two of them involved the Greensboro Board of Education, one 

involved the Caswell County, N C. Board of Education and the other 

was against the Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority. 

The two Greensboro school cases charged the Greensboro school 

board with refusing to admit Negro children to two all-white public 

schools because of their race. Following the filing of the cases, the 

Negro students were admitted. 



=oe 

However, in oné case, involving the Caldwell School campus where 

there was a building for whites and an inferior one for Negroes, all 

Negroes in the area were assigned to the building previously attended 

by whites. All white students and instructional staff were then 

transferred out of the school and sent elsewhere. A Negro faculty 

and principal were installed in the school. 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys sought to file a supplemental 

complaint alleging that these are new occurrences which demonstrate 

that the school board was employing the state Pupil Assignment Act to 

Manipulate the students for the purpose of perpetuating segregation. 

In the Tuesday hearing the District Court held that the only 

right the Negro students had was to attend a particular school build- 

ing, and that they had been admitted to the building to which they 

had sought admission. The District Court indicated that an order 

would be issued to this effect after additional affidavits have been 

filed. This is expected to be done within the next two weeks. 

In the Caswell County case additional time was given to the 

plaintiffs to comply with technicalities of the North Carolina Pupil 

Assignment Law. 

The fourth case heard Tuesday was against the Greensboro-High 

Point Airport Authority for having refused restaurant service to a 

Negro. However, since the filing of the case Negroes have been 

served in the restaurant. The parties agreed to a judgment which 

stated that the refusal of service was unknown to the present manager 

of the restaurant and that it is the restaurant's policy not to dis- 

criminate in the future. 

aa30=5

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top