Shipp v TN Department of Employment Security Brief for Appellants

    IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 76-1515

ERONEOUS SHIPP, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs .
MEMPHIS AREA OFFICE, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT 

OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal From The United States District Court for the 
Western District of Tennessee, Western Division

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
520 Woodward Bldg.
733 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005

JACK GREENBERG 
ERIC SCHNAPPER 
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

ELIJAH NOEL, JR.Ratner, Sugarmon, Lucas & Salky 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants



IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 76-1515

ERONEOUS SHIPP, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.
MEMPHIS AREA OFFICE, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT 

OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal From The United States District Court for the 
Western District of Tennessee, Western Division

BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS
1. (a) Did plaintiff demonstrate a prima facie case

of unlawful discrimination in referrals, etc., by the defendant 
employment service?

(b) If so, did the defendants adequately rebut that 
prima facie case?

2. Did the District Court err in failing to enjoin use 
of the tests relied on by the defendants in hiring and promo­
tion?

3. Did the District Court err in failing to require



the defendants to take additional steps to assure they did 
not serve employers who engage in unlawful discrimination?

4. Did the District Court err in dismissing plaintiff'
individual claim?



STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff is a black citizen who on several 
occasions in the 1960 's sought the assistance in obtaining 
employment from the Memphis Area Office of the Tennessee 
Department of Employment Security ("TDES"). TDES is the 
Tennessee state agency affiliated with and largely funded 
by the Federal Employment Service and provides a free 
employment referral service to Tennessee residents. In 
the spring of 1969 plaintiff filed a timely charge with 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that 
TDES had unlawfully engaged in discrimination on the basis 
of race. After an investigation the Commission found there 
was probable cause to believe TDES had engaged in discrimina­
tion in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
In August 1971, the Commission issued to plaintiff a right 
to sue letter.

This class action was commenced on September 16, 
1971, in the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Tennessee. Jurisdiction over this action was 
alleged to exist under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to enforce 42 U.S.C. 
§§ 1981-85, and under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). The latter 
provision, contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, applied 
to state employment services the strictures of Title VII

/ Complaint, 5 VII, Answer, 5 VII.



prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex and 
national origin. On September 12, 1973, the complaint 
was also amended to allege with greater specificity the 
forms of systematic discrimination in which plaintiff claimed 
TDES had engaged, and to join as defendants the Tennessee 
Department of Personnel and the Commission of Personnel of 
Tennessee. On March 20, 1974, the complaint was further 
amended to allege jurisdiction under Title VI of the 1964 
Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §

Extensive discovery was conducted in 1972 and 1973, 
including depositions of numerous employees of TDES. The 
defendants furnished to plaintiff's counsel computer tapes 
containing certain data on referrals between and
These tapes were subject to computer analysis and the results 
embodied in a number of print outs. On March 20-22, 1974, 
a hearing was held before the Hon. Harry W. Wellford on 
plaintiff's individual claim; plaintiff also presented his 
case-in-chief in support of the class action claim. The 
hearing was then recessed to permit the defendants to prepare 
their response to the class action aspect of the case. At 
the conclusion of this March, 1974 hearing the Court indicated 
that Shipp's individual claim would only be resolved after 
completion of evidence regarding and in the context of the 
class action issues. On June 13, 1974, the District Court,

Exhibits 80-92
Exhibits 59-69.



in declining to grant a defense motion for a directed verdict,

cy

indicated that it would "consider entering a judgment in the
_ /  . .Shipp case". On June 18, 1974, counsel for plaintiff wrote

Judge Wellford reiterating their understanding and desire
. Y * that the individual claim be decided only after and m  the 

context of the decision on the class action. As a precaution 
counsel expressly asked:

If the Court should determine, prior 
to presentation of the defendants 1 case- 
in-chief on the class action allegations, 
to decide the individual plaintiff's 
claim, we would appreciate an opportunity 
to present a supporting brief and/or pro­
posed findings of fact and conclusions of 
law.
The District Judge never responded to this letter, 

and the defendants made no subsequent request that the in­
dividual claim be decided prior to the class action claim. 
On December 20, 1974, without any subsequent proceedings or 
filings, the District Court entered sua sponte a 5 page
decision dismissing Shipp's individual claim.

On April 23, 1975, another hearing was held before 
Judge Wellford on the merits of the class action. The 
defendants presented their case-in-chief, consisting of 
the testimony of a single expert and two exhibits, and 
plaintiff offered additional evidence in rebuttal. There­
after both parties submitted proposed findings of fact and 
conclusions of law. Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of

/ Order of June 13, 1974, p. 
Order of December 20, 1974.

O



the December 20, 1974, order dismissing the individual 
claim. On September 25, 1975, the District Court entered 
a Memorandum Opinion ruling for the defendants on all clas 
action issues, and awarding costs against plaintiff. The 
District Court also reaffirmed its dismissal of the in­
dividual claim. A timely notice of appeal was filed on 

, 1975.



I. THE DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION 
IN THEIR TREATMENT OF APPLICANTS FOR REFERRALS,
PLACEMENT, AND OTHER SERVICES

The complaint in this action alleges that the 
Memphis Office of TDES discriminated on the basis of race 
in the services it provided to applicants seeking assistance 
in finding jobs. The complaint charged specifically that 
the defendants had, inter alia, (a) classified and referred 
black applicants for badly paid menial jobs regardless of 
their actual abilities, (b) applied a more stringent standard 
to blacks than to whites in making referrals to well paid 
or interesting jobs, (c) giving preference to less skilled, 
experienced or recent white applicants over blacks who were 
more skilled or experienced or who had made application for 
referral at an earlier date, (d) referred only blacks to 
certain poorly paid menial jobs. Despite the length and 
complexity of the record before him, Judge Wellford failed 
to make with regard to the controlling issues the specific 
findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Rule 
52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, or to analyze 
that evidence in the manner prescribed by McDonnell Douglas 
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Franklin v. Troxel 
Manufacturing Co., 501 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1974). Accordingly 
it is necessary to review the evidence in substantial detail.



(1) Plaintiff's Prima Facie Case
(a) TDES was first established in 1936 in the wake of 

the Depression. From the outset it operated on a racially 
segregated basis. In 1938 the Memphis branch of the service 
operated three referral offices. There were two white offices 
on Union Street, one housing the Industrial Division and 
another the Commercial and Professional Division. A "Colored 
Office" was established on South Second Street, and housed
the Negro Men's Division and the Domestic Service. Racially 
identified job orders were accepted during this period. 
Although the South Second Street office was operated exclusive 
for blacks, TDES did not employ blacks to work at that office 
until about 1950. In 1958 the white offices were moved to a 
new building at 1295 Poplar Avenue, which TDES continues to 
operate. In 1960 the Colored Office was moved to South Main 
Street, and its name changed to the "Domestic and Labor Office 
That office handled orders for casual and domestic labor, 
which in the Directory of Occupational Titles ("DOT") case 
coded as service jobs (DOT 3); farm jobs were subsequently 
added.

Exhibits 1A, IF.
See Exhibit 1 F, p. 24.

__/ Exhibit 83, Deposition of Jessie Webb, pp. 3-4 Exhibit
84, Deposition of Cecil McDonald, p. 5; Exhibit 87, Deposition 
of George Murphy, pp. 3, 12.

Exhibit 79, Deposition of Edna Flynn, p. 9-10.



7
CV7?

On June 1, 1962, a month prior to scheduled hearings 
regarding TDES by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, 
TDES announced that it was ending its policy of discrimination. 
Under the reorganization plan explained to the Commission, 
clerical, managerial and professional jobs, as well as skilled 
and semi-skilled industrial jobs, were to be handled only at 
the Poplar Avenue office, as in the past, although blacks 
could now use this service. White unskilled workers, however, 
could be referred only by the Poplar Avenue office, and black 
unskilled workers only by the Main Street office. The Main 
Street office was to handle "labor and domestic job orders." 
There were no plans to change the office staff assignments, 
pursuant to which no blacks (other than a janitor and a maid) 
worked at Poplar Avenue, and the Main Street office was staffed
in part by blacks but supervised by whites. In 1967 the 
Domestic and Casual Labor Office moved to Monroe Street, 
where it remained until 1969. Despite the 1962 announcement, 
and the adoption of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that office 
continued to serve the "great portion of the black traffic."
In 1969 the office on Monroe Street was closed and its functions 
and employees moved to the Prospect Avenue office.

Exhibit 26.
Exhibit 79, Deposition of Edna Flynn, p. 13.

-v



Prior to 1970 the staff at TDES specialized in 
particular occupations and jobs. When an employer called 
to place a job order, he would be referred to the inter­
viewer who handled that type of position. Similarly, an 
applicant seeking referral would be sent to the interviewer 
responsible for the type of position sought. The applicant 
would give the interviewer a written application, and the 
interviewer file the application and later search his file 
of job orders for an appropriate vacancy. Then, as now, both 
applicants and job orders were given a six digit number (e.g. 
608.281) corresponding to a particular job description in 
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, and these numbers 
could be used to match applicants to appropriate vacancies. 
Thie first digit of the DOT code signified a general occu­
pational classification (e.g. 2 is clerical and sales, 3 
is service).

In 1970 this procedure was substantially altered. 
The job order-taking was separated from the interviewing 
and referral process. Orders were thereafter taken by an 
employer relations representative, and placed in a computer, 
known as a Job Bank. Interviewers who had access to the 
information on the computer, ceased to specialize in particu­
lar occupation and dealt with any applicants in their office 
regardless of what position the applicant was seeking. In 
addition the list of available jobs was made directly avail­
able to applicants in the Prospect Avenue office, first in 
the form of a book of computer print outs, and, later, on



microfiche cards that were used with a viewer. The print 
out and cards were organized by DOT code, which the applicant 
could use to find a vacancy in which he might be interested.
Once an applicant has filled out an application and received 
a DOT code based on his skills and experience, he can either 
go directly to the Job Bank viewers to look at available 
openings or seek assistance from a counselor or interviewer.
If an applicant finds a job for which he wishes to apply, he 
goes to an interviewer and asks to be referred to that job.
If the applicant is referred to a job he is given a Job Bank 
referral slip to present to the employer. The employer indicates 
on the slip what action he took on the referral and returns
it to TDES.



(b) A systematic analysis was made of all referrals 
made by TDES from July 1972 through June 1973. Because 
of the volume and complexity of this data a series of tables
summarizing the information therein is set out in the appendix 
to this brief. A total of 51,955 referrals were made by the 
defendant during this period; of those 35,358, or 68.1%, were 
black. The average hourly wage of the jobs to which blacks 
and women were referred was substantially below those of the 
jobs to which whites and men were referred.

Average Wage of Job 
To Which Referred__/

Type of Applicant Average Wage
Whites
Blacks

Difference
$2.47
2.09
.38

White Males 
Black Males 

Difference
2.56
2.25
.31

White Females 
Black Females 

Difference
2.25
1.77
.48

Men
Women

Difference
2.35
1.89
.46

This 38 cents an hour overall disparity between black and 
white applicants was the result of four specific disparities.

__/ Exhibit 39, p. 2. Since some applicants were referred
to more than 1 job, and there were cases in which more than 
one applicant was referred for a single vacancy, the number 
of applicants seeking the assistance of TDES during this 
period, and the number of job orders received by TDES, was 
substantially less than 51,955.

Exhibit 39, p. 3.



First, black applicants with a particular 6 digit 
DOT code were consistently referred to jobs which paid less
than the jobs to which whites with the same DOT code, and 
skills, were being referred. Typical examples of differing 
wage rates for males with the same occupation included the 
following:

Average Wage of Referrals __/
Selected Major Male Occupations

White Black
Applicant Occupation Males Males Difference

Shipping and Receiving Clerk $2.53 $2.36 $.17
Commodities Salesmen 3.06 2.61 .45
Arc Welder 3.37 3.06 .31
Carpenter 3.21 2.79 .42
Trash Collector 2.44 2.25 .19
Loader 2.41 2.26 .15

A similar pattern existed among women with the same DOT code:
Average Wage of Referrals _

Selected Major Female Occupations
White Black

Applicant Occupation Females Females Difference
Secretary $2.62 $2.25 $ .37
Key Punch Operator 2.42 2.23 .19
Record Clerk 2.17 2.02 .15
Char Woman 1.98 1.56 .40
Hand Packer 2.05 1.81 .14
Electrical Unit Assembler 2.42 2.10 .32

Since under the TDES system an applicant could not be given the 
DOT code for a carpenter unless "fully experienced," no legiti­
mate explanation for these differences is readily apparent.

__/ See Table
__/ See Table
_/ See Exhibit 82, Deposition of Evelyn Ryan., pp. 20-23. Anapplicant who lacked the requisite experience would be given a different code with an X in it.

\



There were 16 occupations involving over 40 referrals in
which the average hourly wage for white males exceeded
that for black males by more than $.50. There were no such
occupations in which the wages of black males enjoyed such
an advantage. The few instances in which black wages were
higher were generally poorly paid jobs to which over 90%

_ /of the referrals were black.
A similar pattern emerged when a comparison was 

made of blacks and whites who worked in the same industry. 
In virtually every major industry the wages of the jobs 
to which blacks were referred was lower than that of white 
jobs.

Average Wage of Referrals 
Selected Major Industries

Amount By Which Average White 
Wage Exceeded Average Black Wage

Industry
Building Construction 
Other Construction 
Food Manufacturing 
Chemical Manufacturing 
Wholesale trade 
Retail - General 
Retail - Restaurants 
Business Services

Males Females
$.33 $ .48
.15 .38
.31 1.02
.48 .22
.17 .28
.01 .16
.16 .04
.42 .20

See Table
__/ E.g. porter (410 blacks, 12 whites), janitor (206 blacks,
10 whites), waitress (819 blacks, 88 whites) and hotel maid 
(177 blacks, 4 whites). The average wage for all of these 
jobs was under $2.00 an hour.

truck
The sole exceptions were maids and, 
drivers.

inexplicably, female

See Table



A similar pattern existed with the
groups. Such disparate treatment 
the same skills and occupations is

10 major DOT occupation 
of blacks and whites with 
among the .practices for­

bidden by the Department of Labor.
Second, there are 13 major jobs to which over 90% 

of the referrals were black. These included domestic worker 
(100% black, laundress and laundryman (99.73% black), clothes 
presser (98.27% black), hotel maid (97.86% black), short order 
cook (97.33% black) and janitor (95.41% black). Approximately 
1 out of every 6 black applicants was referred to one of these 
black jobs. The average wage of the vacancies in these jobs

__/ Table
__/ The Solicitor's Analysis of 29 C.F.R. part 31 cites as
an example of impermissible "Discrimination in Selection 
and Referral to Job Openings": "Minority Applicants are
referred to auto mechanic's jobs paying $4.50 an hour whereas 
white applicants are referred to auto mechanic's jobs paying 
$5.75 an hour." Exhibit 8, p. 9. At TDES the average re­
ferral rates for auto mechanics (DOT 620, 281) was $2.50 
for white males, $2.42 for black.males, and $2.17 for black 
females.
__/ I.e., involving at least 40 referrals.
__/ Among the 18,155 black applicants with DOT codes 3,619
were referred to these 13 jobs. The referral rate among 
applicants without DOT codes is not known. See Table



to which blacks were referred was a mere $1.60 an hour.
The handful of whites referred to these jobs, however, were 
sent to jobs averaging $1.92 an hour.

Third, whites were referred in disproportionate 
numbers to highly paid jobs and occupation groups, and 
blacks were referred in disproportionate numbers to poorly 
paid jobs and occupation groups. Among men the two highest 
paid occupation groups are structural work ($2.69 an hour) 
and professional, technical and managerial $$3.21 an hour); 
35.7% of all white men were referred to jobs in these occu­
pations, compared to only 13.6% of black men. Conversely, 
14.7% of black men but only 4.8% of white men are referred 
to the worst paid occupation group, service jobs ($2.00 an 
hour). A majority of all jobs to which women were referred 
were either service jobs ($2.14 an hour) or clerical and 
sales jobs ($1.53 an hour). 68.3% of white women were
referred to clerical and sales jobs, compared to only 21.4% 
of black women; 57.5% of black women were referred to service 
jobs, but only 11.7% of white women. A similar pattern of re­
ferral exists among high and low paid jobs within the same
occupation groups../

__/ Table . 207 blacks were referred to general cook jobsaveraging $1.73 an hour; the 15 whites referred to such jobs 
averaged $2.19 an hour. Forty blacks were referred to jobs as car wash attendants averaging $1.67 an hour; the 3 whites re­
ferred to such jobs averaged $2.02 an hour. Fifty-seven blacks 
were referred to jobs as clothes pressers averaging $1.71 an 
hour; one white was referred to such a job at $2.00 an hour.

/ See Tables
See Tables



Fourth, there is a clear pattern of discrimination 
against women which, because of the proportionally larger 
number of black women, has a particularly adverse impact on 
blacks. As was noted, supra, average male wages exceed 
average female wages by $.46 an hour. Out of 64 DOT jobs 
in which more than 40 referrals were made, men received a 
higher average wage in 58. The most important occupation 
groups for women are service, clerical and sales, which 
account for 79.2% of all female referrals. Among the 17 
jobs in these categories with over 100 referrals, the 
average wage rates for men made more in every category.
The jobs in which men were referred to higher paying posi­
tions included the following:

Average Wage of Referrals __/
Selected Service, Clerical and Sales Jobs

Average Male Average Female
Description Waqe Waqe Difference
Secretary $3.08 $2.50 $ .58
Typist 2.77 2.11 . 66
File Clerk 2.90 2.52 .38
Clerk Typist 2.47 2.00 .47
Salesperson - general 2.86 1.89 .97
Cashier-checker 2.80 1.87 .93
Waiter-Waitress 1.74 1.51 .23
Cook - general 2.18 1.59 .59
Switchboard Operator 2.43 2.05 .38
Similarly, among industrial jobs where a majority of the appli­
cants referred were women, men consistently were referred to

See Exhibit 67.
Table



better paying jobs. As the defense expert witness noted, 
this disparate treatment of women has the effect of widen­
ing the gap between black and white wages because of the 
disproportionate number of blacks who are women.

_/ Thus male sewing machine operators were referred to
jobs averaging $2.22 an hour, and women were referred to 
jobs averaging $1.71 an hour. Table

See p. n. infra. Among applicants with DOT
codes 38.4% of the blacks were women, but only 22.9% of 
the whites were women. See Table



&
m (c) This pattern of disparate treatment was directly

8related to the structure and procedures at the TDES office.
y- (1) The 1969 merger of black and white offices 

was neither complete nor permanent. In the Prospect Avenue 
office the old distinctions remerged as a separation of the 
office in to three functional divisions: (i) Casual, Domestic
and Farm Labor, which handles the jobs that were the traditional

j i j ' /tj y/' Pj responsibility of the black office on Main and Monore Streets,
_ cpA

(ii) Commercial, Professional and Technical, which handles the
jobs that were traditionally the exclusive province of the
white Prospect Avenue office,— ■ and (iii) Industrial, which
handles the remaining jobs. Functional divisions soon became
physical. The Casual, Domestic and Farm Labor section was^
located in a separate building known as the Poplar Annes.
The 1969 merger, which for the first time brought large numbers
of black and white applicants into the same office, provided

_ /
a "noticeable loss of white applicants." and in 1973 the 
Commercial, Professional and Technical division was moved out 
of the Prospect Avenue office to a new office on North Cleveland

_/ This apparently corresponds, roughly, to DOT codes
_/ This apparently corresponds, roughly, to DOT Codes 0,
1 and 1.
_/ Whether this was so even in 1969, or occurred only later, 
is unclear.
/ Exhibit 88, Deposition of Raymond Neal, p.53.



Street. The three divisions, thus separated, serve clientels
of differing racial composition. The North Cleveland office
serves an applicant group which is equally divided between whites
and blacks, and which includes about three-fourths of all white
females and one third of all white males who come to TDES The
Poplar Annex serves a group that is 99% black, including one

_ /half of all black females. The main Poplar office is about 
two-thirds black.

This physical separation has a critical impact on referral 
patterns Despite the basic purpose of the Job Bank system, to 
make all jobs readily available to all applicants, the three 
offices maintain separate lists of jobs. Orders for Casual, Domestic 
and Farm labor go directly to the Poplar Annex, and information 
about their jobs are not sent to the Job Bank computer "until all 
the people have been referred and the order is closed or filled"
The Annex does not have a viewer which would permit applicants

_ /
there to consider jobs saved by the other offices. The TDES 
Equal Employment Opportunity representative asked that a viewer 
with commercial, professional and technical jobs be kept at Prospect 
Avenue when that division moved to North Cleveland Street/

_/ Exhibit 91, Deposition of Charles Rudford, p.88. Of 1407 
white females with DOT codes, 1035 are in DOT codes Q 1 and 2.
_/ Exhibit 91, Deposition of Charles Radford, p.90. Of 6981 
black females with DOT codes, 4022 are in DOT codes 3 and 4.
See Table.
_/ Exhibit 88, Deposition of Raymond Neal, p.62. This is 
done solely for record keeping purposes.
_/ Exhibit 84, Deposition of Cecil McDonald, p.28.
/ Exhibit 88, Deposition of Raymond Neal, p.29.



but the Prospect Avenue office did not in fact have copies 
of the microfiche cards describing those jobs. Since
each office keeps its own applications there are thus three
sets of job orders and three sets of applications.

The referral patterns described supra, pp. 
stem in large measure from this division of offices, orders, 
and applications. If a black woman goes to the Poplar Annex 
she is not referred to a clerical or sales job because that 
office has no such orders. If a white woman goes to North 
Cleveland Street she knows she will not be referred to a 
job as a maid or a laundress because that office has no such 
orders. Blacks who file applications at the Poplar office 
or Annex are not considered for commercial, professional 
or technical jobs that may subsequently arise because the 
interviewers at North Cleveland Street do not have those 
files. The job bank system functions only within the main 
office for industrial jobs; otherwise the system remains 
as segregated as it was prior to the 1969 merger. Although 
there is evidence suggesting that TDES officials may steer 
black and whites to the Annex and North Cleveland offices,

__/ Exhibit 82, Deposition of Evelyn Ryan, p. 42.



respectively, those officials are no less culpable if 
applicants are merely following the patterns established 
in years of overt segregation or choosing to mix with the 
applicant group of their own color. In either case TDES 
has failed to establish a unitary employment service.
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 
430 (1968).

(ii) If a black applicant at the Prospect Avenue 
office finds on a microfiche card a job order in which he 
is interested, he cannot simply apply to the employer in­
volved. The microfiche card available to applicants does 
not disclose the identity or address of the employer who 
placed the order; that information is found on a separate 
set of cards to which only the interviewers virtually all 
of whom are white, have access. The applicant must there­
fore ask an interviewer to tell him the identity of the 
employer and refer him to the job.

The interviewers, however, do not refer to a vacancy 
all applicants who want to apply. On the contrary, the 
general practice is to refer only those applicants whom the

_/ See testimony of Emma Batchlor, March 22, 1974, pp.
4-8.



interviewer believes are "qualified". Thus the inter­
viewer has a veto over who will and will not be able to 
apply to an employer for a particular job. In exercising 
that control the interviewer is, as a paratical matter, 
free to apply the standards strictly to one applicant 
and to decide for another applicant, to disregard a re­
quirement or call the employer and try to persuade him to

__/ Hearing of March 20, 1974, p. 172; Hearing of March
21, 1972, pp. 110-111; Exhibit 81, Deposition of 

Leland Dow, pp. 20, 23; Exhibit 88, Deposition of Raymond 
Neal, p. 20; Exhibit 91, Deposition of Charles Radford, 
pp. 65, 70-71. Jessie T. Webb, an employment counsellor, 
testified she tried to persuade applicants that they 
should not seek referrals to jobs for which they were un­
qualified. She indicated she would refer an applicant 
she believed unqualified if he insisted on it despite 
her attempted persuasion, but she could recall no in­
stance in which this actually occurred. Exhibit 83, 
pp. 20-24.



waive it. In some cases, such as a requirement of
experience, the interviewer exercises broad and un­
reviewed subjective judgment as to whether a previous 
job is sufficiently recent and similar to the vacancy 
to qualify. In plaintiff's individual case, for example, 
the interviewer referred to two hites who did not meet 
the age or education requirements and then refused to 
refer Shpp on the ground his experience in shpping did not 
include knowledge of local shpping rates. See pp. ,
infra.

Analysis of the TDES referral data revealed that 
employer education requirements were in fact being applied 
in an unequal manner. Interviewers chose to disregard 
those requirements and refer undereducated whites in far 
greater proportions than they did for blacks. Thus, 
approximately 7.0% of whites with less than ninth grade 
education were referred to jobs requiring 9-11 years, com­
pared to only 2.7% of blacks. About 15.0% of whites who

See



had not graduated from high school were referred to
jobs requiring a high school diploma, compared to only
6.2% of the blacks without degrees. Conversely, the
proportion of blacks referred to jobs for which they
had more education than required was several times greater

_ /than the proportion of whites so referred. Such unequal 
application of job requirements is clearly unlawful.
Sims v. Sheet Metal Workers. 489 F.2d 1023, 1026 (6th Cir. 
1973); Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service, 
11 EPD 510,770, p. 7236 (5th Cir. 1976).

(iii) An applicant can only use the Job Bank 
system to pick a possible job if there is a vacancy in his 
field on the day he visits TDES. Some jobs or industries 
place such a large number of job orders that there is 
likely to be one on a microfiche card when the applicant 
is at the office. For other jobs and industries this is 
not the case; the applicant leaves his application form 
on file in the hope that an appropriate order will be 
received. Each interviewer spends a certain amount of

See tables



time each week conducting file searches, trying to locate 
an applicant who has or approximates the qualifications
for hard to fill or less common jobs. The assistant 
manager of the Memphis office conceded there was a "possibility 
for discrimination in this situation. That is partic­
ularly so because there is no standard for determining 
which of the qualified applicants an interviewer will con­
tact about or refer to the job. One official said the 
interviewer would "try to match up the best applicant" 
but that there was "no standard procedure'.' Other witnesses

__/ Hearing of March 20, 1974, pp. 110, 176-78; Hearing
of March 22, 1974, Testimony of Emma Barchlor, pp. 22, 40- 
43; Exhibit 81, Deposition of Leland Dow, pp. 23-27, 30- 
34; Exhibit 82, Deposition of Evelyn Ryan, pp. 29-31, 
Exhibit 87, Deposition of Lois B. Farmer, pp. 29, 30-31.

Exhibit 91, Deposition of Charles Redford, p. 129.

Exhibit 81, Deposition of Leland Dow, p. 30.



said they believed the practice would be to give 
priority to someone the interviewer had seen personally 
and remembered. This Court has repeatedly condemned
election processes which thus place the critical decision 
in the hands of a largely white group bound to apply no 
fixed standard. Afro American Patrolmens League v. Davis, 
503 F.2d 294, 303 (6th Cir. 1974); Senter v. General Motors 
Corp., 11 EPD 110,841, p. 7094 (6th Cir. 1976).

The danger of this system is well illustrated by 
plaintiff's first visit to TDES in 1964, when all orders 
were filled by file search. Plaintiff had completed several 
years as an Air Force officer, had several years' experience 
managing a large air cargo terminal and supervising a score 
of employees, and had just received a Masters degree in 
Business Administration from Columbia University. His 
education alone put him in the top 1% of all TDES applicants 
Had plaintiff been white, his degree, combined with his mana 
gerial experience, would have made him one of the most 
sought after and easily placed applicants in TDES' filed. 
Plaintiff was never referred to a single job.

__/Exhibit 82, Deposition of Evelyn Ryan, p. 30; Exhibit
87, Deposition of Lois B. Farmer, p. 30.



(iv) Even if a file search, or approval of 
request for referral, are conducted in a non-discriminatory 
manner, they both depend for their fairness on the accuracy of 
the DOT code assigned to the applicant. If a black em­
ployee with skill and experience was mistakenly coded for 
a job below his actual abilities, his application would not 
be picked out on a file search and an interviewer would 
conclude he was unqualified for work which he was in fact 
able to do. The DOT classification which the white inter­
viewers gave to black applicants was thus critical to the 
integrity of the entire referral process; given the sub­
jective and unreviewed nature of that classification decision, 
it was also one fraught with potential for discrimination.
See Afro American Patrolmens League v. Davis, 503 F.2d 294,
300 (6th Cir. 1974); Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 
348, 358-59 (5th Cir.); United States v. Hazelwood School 
District. 11 EPD 510,854, p. 7577 (8th Cir. 1976).

The pattern of classifications clearly suggested that 
this subjective discretion had been misused. Among car­
penters, for example, 76.6% of the blacks were classified 
as "carpenter helpers" compared to 53% of the whites. 
Similarly, 52.6% of blacks, with experience in sheet metal 
working were classified a helpers, compared to only 27.2%



of the whites. Maintenance men employed in buildings 
earn substantially less than maintenance men in 
factories; of black maintenance men only 25% were 
classified for factory maintenance work, compared to 46% 
of whites. Only about half of all applicants were 
assigned DOT codes, and the use of those codes tended to 
increase the disparity in referral wages. Blacks with 
DOT codes were referred to jobs paying $.54 an hour less 
than whites with DOT codes, a differential substantially 
greater than the differential for all applicants. ^

Table

_/ Compare Table with Table



(d) Plaintiff also introduced evidence showing that 
these disparities could not be explained in terms of either 
education or training requirements.

The difference between black and white wages re­
mained even when education was taken into account.

Differences in Average Wage of Referral
By Education__/

Education White Males v. 
Black Males

White Females v. 
Black Females

Males v. 
Females

0-8 years $ .23 $ .10 .54
9-11 years .34 .23 .47
High School 

Graduate .23 .52 .39
Over 12 years .03 .13 .45
Total .31 .48 .46
Although whites on the average had more years of education 
than blacks, the wage disparity existed at every level.
Moreover an increase in education did not necessarily guarantee 
a significant increase in wages. Although females had, on 
the average, more education than males, they earned less, and 
the disparity existed at all levels of education. Females 
with more than 12 years of education averaged about the same 
referral wage as males of the same race with 0-8 years.

Exhibit 39.
Black males with 0-8 years of education averaged only 
an hour less than black males with 9-11 years. White 
who had more than 12 years of education made only 
average than white male high school graduates. And 
females who had more than 12 years of education averaged 

than white female high school graduates. Id.
See Exhibit 66.

__/ Exhibit 39, p. 3. White females over 12 years averaged
$2.20, compared to $2.25 for white males with 0-8 years. Black females with over 12 years averaged $2.07, compared to $2.02 for black males with 0-8 years.



Plaintiff also showed that the referral wage dis­
parity between blacks and whites existed even among appli­
cants to jobs for which no experience of any kind was 
required. Exhibit 43 revealed the average wage rates for 
trainee jobs requiring no experience in 11 major DOT occu­
pation groups. The average referral wage for whites was 
$.31 higher than for blacks, only slightly less than the 
difference referrals to all jobs. Moreover the same pattern 
of referring whites to better paying industries emerged.
56.2% of all white females were referred to trainee jobs 
in stenography, typing and filing, compared to only 17.0% of
black females. 47.3% of black females were referred to jobs

_ /
in food and beverage preparation and service, compared to 
only 14.6% of white females.

This evidence was far more than required to establish 
a prima facie case of discrimination. The $.38 an hour dif­
ference in average black and white referral rates might alone 
have been sufficient to meet plaintiff's burden. United 
States v. Masoning Contractors Ass'n of Memphis, F.2d

, 875 (6th Cir. 1974); E.E.O.C. v. Detroit Edison, 515 
F .2d 301, 313 (6th Cir. 1975. An employee is at an inherent

DOT 20, average female wage $2.13 an hour. 
DOT 31, average female wage $1.28 an hour.
Exhibit 43.



disadvantage in gathering hard evidence of employment dis­
crimination, particularly when the discrimination is plant­
wide in scope. It is for this reason that we generally 
acknowledge the value of statistical evidence in establishing 
a prima facie case." Senter v. General Motors Co., 11 EPD 
S 10,741, p. 7093 (6th Cir. 1976). In this case plaintiff 
not only proved this overall wage difference, but unearthed 
a detailed and systematic pattern of disparities in the type 
of jobs to which blacks and whites were referred and in the 
wages of jobs for blacks and whites in the same occupation, 
pp. - , supra, explained the various opportunities for
discrimination which had been used to produce this pattern, 
pp. - , supra, and showed that the disparities could
Not be explained by possibly legitimate considerations. In 
the face of this showing the District Court had no choice 
but to hold the defendants guilty of discrimination unless 
they could, by clear and convincing evidence, rebut in all 
relevant particulars this palpable violation of Title VII.



(2) The Evidence In Rebuttal
Plaintiff having established a prima facie 

case of discrimination, the burden of persuasion shifted 
to TDES to demonstrate that there were nondiscriminatory 
reasons for the observed disparity. Watkins v. Scott 
Paper Co., 530 F.2d 1159, 1192 (5th Cir. 1976). To meet 
that burden an employer (or referral service) must show 
(1) that the disparity was due to differences in skills, 
experience, or other criterion, (2) that the factor was 
job related, and (3) that the use of these criterion in 
no way perpetuates the effects of past discrimination. 
Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 494 F.2d 211, 225 
n.34 (5th Cir. 1974); Brown v. Gaston County Dyeing Machine 
Co., 457 F.2d 1377, 1382 (4th Cir.) cert. denied 409 U.S.
982 (1972); Carter v. Gallagher, 452 F.2d 315 (8th Cir.
1971) cert, denied 406 U.S. 950 (1972).

TDES' defense consisted of the testimony of Dr. 
Bernard Siskin, an associate professor of statistics at 
Temple University. That testimony, accompanied by a written 
statement and several tables, consisted of his own explana­
tion of some of the data introduced by plaintiff, a commen­
tary on the testimony of Dr. Ullman, and a statistical 
analysis of some of the plaintiff's data. Dr. Siskin never

/ Exhibits 94 and 95.



_ /visited the TDES office, did not examine the original
individual records of referrals, and made no inquiry into
the history of TDES itself. He was offered and accepted
only as "an expert in the area of the statistical analysis
and inferences that may be drawn from statistical data.

Siskin's testimony dealt with three major issues.
First, he explained he had performed a "regression analysis"
on the referral data to determine what applicant characteristics
correlated significantly with differing levels of wages. This
was done by (a) computing, with all other characteristics fixed,
the difference in wage rate associated with a given variable,
characteristic e.g., how much more men's rate was than women's
among white, college educated, 25-30 year old non-veterans;
and then (b) averaging this difference for all combinations of
the fixed characteristics. The resulting figure represented,
loosely speaking, how much the wages varied with the variable
characteristic all other (specified) things being equal. The
analysis could not, of course, explain why there was a correlation

_ /
between the varying characteristic and referral wages.

Plaintiff's data had showed that, on the average, white 
applicants had been referred to jobs paying $.36 an hour more than

__/ Hearing of April 23, 1975, p.152
__/ Id., p. 159
_/ See Exhibit 95, "Wage Rates of Referrals;" Exhibit 94, pp.
9-6; Hearing of April 23, 1975, pp. 252-258.



those to which blacks were referred. Siskin testified his 
analysis yielded the following results:

Effects of the Given Variables
Upon the Waqe of Referrals

_/

Variable Effect
Sex -$.41
Education +$.14 per year of education
Veteran -+-$. 12
Age ■+■$.06 per year old 

-$.0008 per year old squared
Race -$.18

Siskin explained this meant, that, with the other variables held 
constant, referral wage rates were higher for men than for 
women (by $.41 an hour), for Whites than for blacks (by $.18 
an hour), for veterans than for non-veterans (by $.12 an hour), 
and for the better educated (at a rate that rose with education). 
Wage rates rose with age until the applicant reached 38, and then 
declined.

Siskin urged that real difference is wages between blacks 
and whites was really only $.18; blacks did worse than that, 
overall, not because they were black, but because they had "less 
education, they are more likely to be female and less likely 
to be veterans. Siskin concluded that it was "reasonable"

__/ Exhibit 94, p.5; Exhibit 95, Wage Rates of Referrals, p.5.
__/ Hearing of April 23, 1975, p.189; Exhibit 95, "Wage Rates
of Referrals," pp. 4-6.



M"

and "logical" to conclude that the remaining $.18 differ­
ential was due, not to discrimination, but to differences 
in skill and experience.

Second, Siskin reviewed the wages differences 
in Exhibits 40-43, pertaining to referrals to trainee 
jobs, and concluded that these differences as well were 
probably due to differences in "education, experience, 
veterans benefits," and the other variables noted above.
He explained that, statistically speaking, the wage dif­
ferences of from $.11 to $.41 an hour revealed by these 
tables, was not significant. And he argued that, even 
though there were jobs for which no experience was required, 
the employees would "really prefer" an experienced applicant.

Third, Siskin emphasized that plaintiffs data had 
showed that, for the year in question, the referral-to- 
placement ratio for blacks, the number of blacks referred 
out compared to the number who got jobs, was higher than 
for whites. Siskin offered two conflicting explanations,

that blacks are given greater exposure 
to employment possibilities or opportu­
nities by the Employment Service than 
are whites; /

or that
blacks referred to jobs by the Employment 
Service are rejected by employers at a dis­
proportionate rate relative to whites and

__/ Hearing of April 23, 1975, pp.190, 191, 256; Exhibit
95, "Wage Rates of Referrals, p. 7.
__/ Hearing of April 23, 1974, pp. 168-190 Exhibit 95, pp. 3-5,
_/ Exhibit 95, p. 2-4.



and racial disparity evidently exists 
in the occupation structure of the 
Memphis labor market. These facts 
suggest that the employers may be 
practicing racial discrimination

Siskin insisted, however, that such discrimination by
employers was none of the defendants' concern.

This evidence was insufficient to rebut plaintiff's 
prima facie case for several distinct reasons.

(1) The evidence adduced by defendants was limited 
to certain types of disparate treatment in the tyoes of jobs 
to which blacks and whites were referred. Siskin's testimony 
neither bore on nor offered any defense to the fact that blacks 
and whites with the same DOT code and skill were being referred 
to jobs with different wage levels. See pp. , supra. While 
Siskin argued that a randomly selected black was less likely 
to be qualified for a skilled job such as a shipping clerk or 
carpenter, he never suggested that those blacks who were ship­
ping clerks and carpenters would be less skilled or experienced 
than whites. The evidence revealed that whites were better 
paid than blacks in the same DOT category regardless of whether 
the category was predominantly white (e.g. professional, technical 
and clerical) or predominantly black (e.g. service). The evidence

Id., "Wage Rates of Referrals," pp. 8-9.
, see also Hearing of April 23, 
242-48.

1975, pp. 166-67,

__/ Indeed, given the historic barriers that have existed
to minority entry into these jobs, it would be reasonable 
to expect those blacks who had entered them to be unusually 
skilled and motivated



adduced by defendants suggested no legitimate explanation 
for this disparity. Nor did the defendants offer any 
legitimate explanation for a variety of other discrimina­
tory practices, including referring only blacks to certain 
types of jobs, referring disproportionate numbers of whites 
to jobs for which they were educationally unqualifed, re­
ferring disproportionate numbers of blacks to jobs for 
which they were educationally over qualified, etc. See 
pp. , supra.

(2) There was no conclusive evidence that black 
applicants at TDES actually had a lower leval of skills and 
experience than white applicants. Siskin suggested this might 
be the case if one assumed the distribution of skills and 
experience among black and white applicants was exactly the
same as among the Memphis labor force as a whole. But as 
Siskin himself recognized, that assumption is without founda­
tion. Siskin noted that professionals and managers, the major
high skill white category, are "considerably less likely to

_ /use Employment Security" than others. Equally important, 
proportionally speaking blacks are over 7 times as likely as 
whites to use TDES, and thus the sample of the workforce doing 
so is skewed in some unknown manner. Beyond his hypothesis 
concerning the Memphis work force Siskin could offer no reason 
for believing black applicants were less skilled or experienced;

Id., n.l.
__/ Nonwhites constitute approximately 30% of the work force
in the Memphis area, and 69.8% of the TDES applicants. Exhibit 
39. Black females are over 10 times as likely to apply to TDES 
as white females.



7

a

he had deliberately refrained from conducting any studying 
of the defendants' records to see if there were actual dif­
ferences in skills or experience.

accepted as proof of the skills of actual applicants, it would 
constitute a defense to every case of discrimination in hiring. 
There is not a major city in the country in which blacks as 
a whole are not significantly less trained and experienced 
than whites. No court has ever suggested that an employer 
could justify or explain disparate treatment of black applicants 
on such a flimsy basis.

mised on the assumption that jobs for which experience was 
helpful would be better paid, and that this difference in 
wage level accounted for the difference in the wages of the 
jobs to which blacks and whites were referred. If that were 
so wages for trainiee jobs requiring no experience would be 
far lower than wages for all jobs, since the latter group 
includes large numbers of jobs which are not open to trainees 
and for which experience is necessary. And, if the proportion 
of blacks without experience is lower than among whites, the 
difference between black and white wages should be far smaller 
among trainees than among total referrals. In fact, however, 
neither hypothesis is supported by the data.

_/ Trainee jobs requiring no experience accounted for only
40% of the jobs in the 11 DOT categories which are covered 
by Exhibits 43 and 55.

If the composition of the regional work force were

(3) Siskin's explanation of Exhibits 41-43 was pre-



Average Wage Rates 
Selected DOT Codes

All Referrals
Trainee Jobs 
No Experience 
Reauired

White Males $2.40 $2.41
Black Males 2.16 2.17
Difference .24 .24

White Females 2.13 2.05
Black Females 1.64 1.64
Difference .49 .39

All Whites 2.34 2.33
All Blacks 2.01 2.03
Difference .33 .30
Contrary to Siskin's assumption, inexperienced trainee wages 
were equal to or greater than ordinary referral rates; those 
for all groups other than white females, and removing ex­
perience requirements had only a marginal effect on the gap be­
tween black and white wages.

(4) In explaining the substantial wage difference 
for whites and blacks referred to trainee jobs requiring no 
experience, Siskin hypothesized that, although the employers
involved did not require experience, large numbers of the

_ /employers involved in fact desired experience. Although

Exhibits 43, 55.



fs7

there were 11,748 referrals to such jobs the only evidence 
offered in support of this hypothesis was a sample print 
out showing 2 instances in which such a desire had been 
expressed. The defendants offered no testimony by TDES 
employees with personal knowledge as to the frequency of 
such requests. Although the records of the job orders in 
question were in the defendants' possession, TDES did not 
offer into evidence either the records themselves, a sum­
mary of their content, or a computer analysis thereof.
Such a selective presentation was clearly insufficient 
to meet the defendants 1 burden of establishing that experience 
or skill was actually desired by the employers.

(5) Siskin speculated that the difference the 
referral ratio revealed by plaintiff's study might have 
been caused by a systematic TDES practice of trying to 
assist blacks by referring them to high paying jobs for 
which they were not qualified. He hypothesized that, a black 
applicant would receive a series of progressively less attrac­
tive referrals until a position was found for which the appli­
cant's qualifications were adequate. On this hypothesis, it 
was noted, the wages of the jobs in which blacks were placed 
would be substantially lower than the average rate for the 
positions to which they were referred, and the gulf between 
black and white placement wages significantly greater than 
that for referral wages. Not a shred of evidence was introduced

__/ Exhibits 72(A) and (B). The two trainee jobs involved
were for a janitor (DOT 382.884) and a security guard (DOT 
372.868). Blacks constitute 95.4% of the referrals to the jobs with the former code and 76.9% of the referrals to jobs 
with the latter. See Exhibit 67, pp. 067, 068.
_/ Hearing of April 23, 1975, pp. 166-67, 220-21.



to support this hypothesis, and the defendants did not produce 
from their files a single instance in which a black had re­
ceived a series of referrals in the manner theorized.

Documents in the possession of the defendants belied 
this speculation. The TDES computerized report for the year 
ending January 31, 1972, showed that well educated applicants 
required more referrals than the uneducated, that clients 
sent to TDES were placed very easily, and that applicants 
classified as lacking minimal amounts of education, skill or 
experience required fewer referrals than ordinary clients. 
Although plaintiff's study showed blacks had a higher referral 
to placement ratio for the year ending June 1973, the TDES 
report showed whites had a higher ratio for the year ending 
January, 1972; the variation suggesting the difference is 
of little significance. The difference between the wages 
of blacks and whites actually placed was slightly smaller 
than the difference in the rates of the jobs to which they 
were referred.

(6) The regression analysis prepared by Dr. Siskin 
was legally inadequate for several reasons.

__/ The report in question was disclosed to plaintiffs as
part of discovery and is reprinted as Tables

See Table
__/ The difference in the average placement wage, as revealed
by Table , was approximately $.34. The difference in the 
average referral wages, as revealed by Table , was $.36.
The change may be due to inflation, since the first figure is 
for the year ending in January, 1972, and the latter for the 
year ending in June, 1973.



(a) The major independent variable used by Siskin 
to reduce the difference between black and white applicants 
was sex. Siskin's analysis showed that, all other things 
being equal, female applicants were referred to jobs paying 
$.41 an hour less than males. Since there was a dispropor­
tionate number of black females, this "explained" a large 
part of the apparent difference between blacks and whites.
While this exercise was technically interesting, from a 
legal perspective it was simply an assertion that the de­
fendants were really discriminating on the basis of sex 
rather than race, and that this merely happened to have an 
adverse impact on blacks. That is not a defense cognizable 
under Title VII.

(b) The second variable relied on by Siskin was 
education, which his analysis suggested increased referral 
wages at the rate of $.18 per year of education. Since, as 
Siskin stressed, black applicants tended to be less well 
educated than whites, this also helped to "explain" the 
lower wages paid to blacks. That explanation is precisely 
the adverse impact which under Title VII triggers a require­
ment that the defendant prove the use of an education standard 
is job-related. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). 
Dr. Siskin expressly noted that his analysis,

Exhibit 95, p. 5.



does not imply validity to the 
education requirement. However, 
the employment Service simply 
makes referrals to employers it 
does not hire. The question of 
the validity of education must fall 
on the employer not the Employment 
Service which tries to fill a job 
order.__/

There was, however, no evidence that less educated applicants 
were referred to poorly paid jobs due to employer requirements 
rather than criterion formulated by TDES employees. Even if 
that were the case, Siskin was wrong in his assumption that 
TDES could serve with impunity employers which used education 
requirements that violated Title VII. See pp. , infra.
The reliance of this state agency on the inferior education 
of blacks must be considered in light of the role of other 
arms of the state in maintaining a segregated and inferior 
black school system throughout most of this century. See 
Northcross v . Board of Education of Memphis City Schools,

F.2d (6th Cir. 197 ); Gaston County v. United States,
395 U.S. 285 (1969). Similarly, in view of the defendant's 
admitted past discrimination, and of its importance to the 
black community in Memphis, it would at the least be difficult 
for TDES to establish it was in no sense responsible for the 
allegedly lower levels of black skills and experience. The 
sole defense witness conceded he had no idea what role TDES 
might have had "in the past in perpetuating or establishing 
discrimination [or a] discriminatory pattern in the labor
market."

Id., n. 9.Hearing of April 23, 1975, pp. 261-62.



(c) The regression analysis was able to "explain" 
only half of the $.36 an hour wage difference between black 
and white referrals. It still revealed that, even holding 
constant sex, education, veteran status, and age, blacks 
still were referred to jobs paying $.18 an hour less than 
whites. Although Siskin believed this difference was due to 
differences in skill, experience, and "special education," 
there is nothing in the record to support such a belief.

The evidence offered by TDES in defense of this 
action was palpably inadequate to meet its "burden of per­
vasion that there were nondiscriminatory reasons for the 
observed disparity.



(3) The Opinion of the District Court
The Memorandum Opinion of the District Court

failed to resolve the controlling factual and legal issues,
or to make the structural analysis of the evidence required
by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
The only reference to the possible existence of a prima
facie case was the following statement;

There was a significant dispute between 
sincere experts who testified in this 
cause as to the effect of statistical 
studies and analysis and not only whether 
they indicated a prima facie case of 
employment discrimination, but also 
whether they indicated racial discrimina­
tion at all as to the effect of TDES 
services when factors of skill, education 
and experience were taken into account.__/

The opinion is devoted largely to an incomplete and not
entirely consistent summary of the evidence.

The limited findings of the District Court were
equivocal, inconsistent, and tangential to the central issues
of the case. The court noted there had been some "good faith"

Memorandum Opinion, September 25, 1975, pp. 15-16.
_/ The opinion, at page 12, relies on Dr. Siskin for the
proposition that "it is almost three times more likely that 
a white applicant is high-skilled than a black is high- 
skilled." Two pages later the opinion states, "whites who 
apply at the Memphis Office of TDES are almost twice as 
likely to have high skill experience than blacks." P. 14. 
The record in fact contained no evidence as to the actual 
skills and experience of black and white applicants.



efforts by management "although not entirely effective, to 
alleviate effects of past discrimination within the internal 
structure of the office and in its impact on the Memphis 
employment community," and "to eradicate past effects of 
segregation and discrimination." Manifestly the existence 
of such ineffective good faith efforts was not a defense 
to the underlying cause of action. See Griggs v. Duke Power 
Co., U.S. , (197 ); Albemarle Paper Co. v.
Moody, U.S. (1975). Paradoxically, having thus
noted the existence of past discrimination by TDES and its 
impact on the community, the court also stated it could "not 
find any basis to attribute to the Memphis Office of TDES 
a realistic causative force" in the alleged differences in 
experience and education, which the court blamed instead 
on "the community itself, and the private sources of em­
ployment." The impact of TDES1s discrimination on community 
employment patterns, noted on page 14 of the opinion, was 
forgotten by page 15. And the wodespread private discrimina­
tion relied on at p. 15 was forgotten when the court, con­
fronted by evidence that TDES had terminated service to only two 
or three employers in recent memory, failed to compel TDES to 
comply with its statutory duty not to do business with dis­
criminatory employers. See pp. , infra.

Id., pp. 15-16.
Id., p. 16.

>



The class action portion of the opinion concludes 
with the statement:

Plaintiff has failed to show that present 
referral policies and practices of the 
defendants have an unlawful discriminatory 
impact upon black applicants now, or that 
they perpetuate past effects of racial 
discrimination for which defendants may be 
deemed responsible.__/

This is precisely the sort of general conclusive holding, 
inextricably intertwining questions of law and fact, which 
Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was adopted 
to avoid. It is impossible to determine what legal standard 
the District Court applied in determining what impacts were 
sufficiently discriminatory to be 'bnlawful" and when an 
employment service which had engaged in past discrimination 
could be "deemed responsible" for differences in experience 
between blacks and whites. It does not reveal what the 
District Court thought about the complex patterns of dif­
ferences in referrals revealed above. The failure of the 
District Court to make specific and detailed findings of 
fact would alone require reversal of the judgment below.
See pp. , infra.

In the instance case, however, the record consists 
largely of evidence of disparate treatment which was essentially 
uncontested. The controlling question on appeal is what con­
clusions must, as a matter of law, be drawn from that record. 
Palmer v. General Mills, Inc.,513 F.2d 1040, 1043 (6th Cir.
1975) ? Sims v. Sheet Metal Workers, 489 F.2d 1023, 1027 (6th

Id., p. 17.

•S



Cir. 1973). For the reasons noted above, plaintiffs clearly 
met their burden of establishing a prima facie case, and the 
defendants failed to rebut it in any relevant particular.
Under these circumstances the ultimate question of whether 
the defendants were guilty of unlawful discrimination must 
be resolved in favor of plaintiffs. Wade v. Mississippi 
Cooperative Extension Service, F.2d , /II E?D
5 10,770, p. 7234 (5th Cir. 1976); United States v. Jacksonville 
Terminal Co., 451 F.2d 418, 423-24 (5th Cir. 1971) ; Causey v. 
Ford Motor Co., 516 F.2d 416, 420-21 (5th Cir. 1975). The 
decision below should be reversed and the case remanded to 
the District Court with instructions to fashion appropriate 
relief.

4-



II. THE DEFENDANTS ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION 
IN THE HIRING AND PROMOTION OF EMPLOYEES AT THE 
MEMPHIS AREA OFFICE OF TDES

Because of the nature of the referral system 
operated by the defendants, particularly the broad and often 
standardless discretion accorded to interviewers, see pp. , 
supra, the identity and attitudes of TDES personnel, especially 
interviewers, was and is of paramount importance to individuals 
seeking non-discriminatory treatment of their applications 
for referral. Plaintiff's Complaint and Amended Supplemental 
Complaint both specifically alleged that the defendants had 
engaged in racial discrimination in the hiring and promotion 
of TDES personnel, and that this was a major cause of the 
discrimination in referrals described above. Compare Sims 
v. Sheet Metal Workers, 489 F.2d 1023, 1026 (6th Cir. 1973).

__/ The Complaint after alleging in detail discrimination
in referrals, claimed the defendants were "discriminating 
against Negro applicants for employment by or promotion 
with, Tennessee Employment, and thereby establishing and 
maintaining an employment service whose employee's are 
prejudiced against Negro applicants and therefore engage 
in or permit other discriminatory practices described 
hereinabove." Complaint, 5 V(l).
__/ The Amended and Supplemental Complaint alleged: "The
racially discriminatory policies and practices of defendant 
. . ., are the direct and proximate result, in part of 
the exclusion of black persons from, or the limitation of 
black persons in, employment in certain critical positions 
within the Memphis Area Office. For example, of the office's 
approximately 50 interviewers, many of whom are directly 
responsible for the referral of applicants to job openings 
and others of whom (all of these are white) are responsible 
for dealing with employers placing job orders, over 90% are 
white, although numerous black persons, both within and 
without the Memphis Area Office, are equally or more qualified 
to perform the same duties. Other positions within the Office 
are occupied exclusively or almost so by blacks." A. 5 pp. 2-3

\



In 1962, although TDES claimed to have ended
its practice of operating separate offices for white and
black applicants, the staffs remained essentially segregated.
At the "formerly" white Prospect Avenue office, all 82
employees, other than the maid and janitor, were white. At
the "formerly" black South Main Street office there were
24 black employees and 10 whites. At the Prospect Avenue
Office all 48 full and part-time interviewers were white;
at the South Main Street office 19 of the 25 full and part

_ /time interviewers were black. Despite the segregation, 
blacks constituted 26.0% of the interviewers employed by 
TDES in Memphis in 1962. In 1966 whites were still 46 of 
the 48 Prospect Avenue employees.

In 1967 the South Main Street Office was replaced 
by an office of equal size at 1328 Monroe Street; the new 
office was staffed with employees from Poplar Avenue, newly 
hired individuals, and only "part of the staff of Main Street."

__/ Exhibit 26, Hearings Before the United States Commission
on Civil Rights, p. 234 (1962). When asked whether in 1962 
TDES intended to assign blacks to the Poplar Avenue office,
Mr. Dow answered, "I cannot state that because I do not know 
what the policy or the plan is in that regard." Id., pp. 220- 
221.
__/ Exhibit 29, p. 41.
_/ Exhibit 81, Deposition of Leland B. Dow, Jr., pp. 7-8



In 1969 the Monroe Street office was merged into the
Prospect Avenue office. By 1974, as a result of these
mergers, only 15.7% of the black interviewers employed
in 1962 were still working for TDES, compared to 50.0%

_ /of the white interviewers. Cf. Singleton v.
F . 2d (5th Cir. 19 ) .

When this case came to trial in March, 1974, the 
TDES employees in Memphis were, for the most part, segre­
gated into identifiably white and black jobs.

Job Assignments
Memphis Office Employees of TDES, 1974 

Jobs Categories With More 
Than .5 Employees__/

Job Category White Employees Black Employees
Managerial 15 2
Interviewer 45 4
Employer Relations 

Representative 10 1
Counselor 18 9
Employment Agent 1 17
Interviewing Clerk 1 5
Typist 5 12
Since 1962 blacks had fallen from 26.0% of the interviewers
(19 of 73) to 8.2% (4 of 49) This decline was the result,
not only of the loss of the particular black interviewers,

__/ Of the 54 full and part time 1962 white interviewers,
16 were still employed as interviewers and 11 held higher 
positions. Of the 19 full and part time 1962 black inter­
viewers, only 3 remained with TDES. Exhibit 2B.
__/ Exhibit 3, Analysis of Appendix D to Interrogatory
Answers, Managerial includes supervising interviewer.



but also of a clear pattern of discrimination in hiring 
and promotion into the various job categories in the 
years immediately prior to trial.

Promotions and Hires After January 1, 1970 
_______Memphis Area Office of TDES /

Job Category White Employees Black Employees
Managerial 9 1
Interviewer 17 1
Employee Relations Representative 7 1
Counselor 8 7
Employment Agent 1 12
Interviewing Clerk 0 1
Typist 3 8
From September 16, 1969, when this action was filed, until
the close of discovery, the defendants hired 20 interviewers,

_ /of whom only 1 was black. The exclusion of blacks from the 
ranks of interviewers guaranteed similar exclusion from jobs 
as managers and employer relations representatives which are 
traditionally filled by promoting interviewers. This hiring 
pattern was clearly aggravating rather than reducing the 
exclusion of blacks from jobs as managers, interviewers and

__/ Exhibits ID, 2 B. Although the trial of plaintiff's
case was held in March, 1974, the discovery was completed 
earlier and includes hire and promotion data only through
1973 .

Exhibit 2B.
__/ Exhibit 2 B. 85.0% managers, 72.7% of the employer
relations representatives, and 56.5% of the counselors had 
earlier served as interviewers.

4



employer relations representatives.
Selection of employees for all of those predomi­

nantly white jobs is made on the basis of tests prepared 
by the Tennessee Department of Personnel. The test for 
interviewer positions consists solely of a written exam­
ination; the score of applicants for other positions is a 
combination of the result of such a written test plus a 
certain number of additional points based on their education 
and experience. When a vacancy arises within TDES the 
Department of Personnel provides certified lists of individuals 
with high enough scores to be eligible for the job. TDES may 
then appoint any person on a list of eligibles; TDES is not 
obligated to consider or interview all of the eligibles, and 
there are no written standards delineating how the choice 
among the eligibles is to be made.

_/ Because a majority of counselors jobs have in the past been
filled by former interviewers, the declining number of black 
interviewers will inevitably lead to a reduction in the number 
of black counselors. Since 1970 5 of the 7 blacks named as 
counselors had previously served as interviewers; during this 
same period only 1 new black interviewer was hired. Since there 
are now only 4 black interviewers left in TDES, the number of 
blacks promoted from interviewer to counselor is certain to 
decline.

This was not always so. See pp. infra.
_/ See generally Transcript of Hearing of March 20, 1974,
pp. 88-132; Exhibit 92, Deposition of Robert Chaffin.



The Department of Personnel keeps no records of 
the test scores by race of black and white applicants^
The Department's Director of Intergovernmental and Employee 
Relations, however, candidly conceded "the top end of the 
score system to be disproportionately white". Because of 
this acknowledged impact of the written tests state personnel 
officials steer qualified minority applicants who are unable 
to pass the tests to lower paid though closely related jobs 
such as employment agent for which no written test is re-

y  \ \ w
f c  quited. Even if the adverse impact of the Department's 

‘ p tests had not been conceded, the existence of such an impact
on minority group members was otherwise established by the 

t record. at least in tne aosence of records of the race and
scores of the applicants who took the tests, adverse impact

\T -------------------------------
Transcript of Hearing of March 20, 1974, p. 126.

__/ Id., p. 122. The Director took a similar position inhis deposition.
"Q. Has it been your observation, generally that 

you do have a greater majority of minority 
applicants . . . falling below the top three 
or top five on any particular list?

A. That is definitely true that that does occur, 
and that is going to be true anywhere where a 
group of people have had a poor education and a 
poor opportunity for education that others have."

Exhibit 92, p. 37.



must be inferred if the proportion of minority employees 
hired on the basis of the test was significantly smaller 
than the proportion of minority employees in agency jobs 
below those in question or than the proportion of minority 
employees in the area. Afro-American Patrolmen's League 
v. Davis, 503 F.2d 296, 300 (6th Cir. 1974); Bridgeport 
Guardians v. Members of Bridgeport Civil Service Commission, 
482 F.2d 1333, 1335-36 (2d Cir. 1973); United States v.
Georgia Power Co. ., 474 F.2d 906, 910 (5th Cir. 1973);
League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Santa 
Ana, 11 EPD 5 10,818, p. 7419 (C.D. Cal. 1976). In the 
instant case only 8.3% of the applicants selected since 
1970 for jobs as managers, interviewers, or employer 
relations representatives were non-white. Blacks constituted 
34.0% of the Memphis TDES employees, 55% of the TDES employees 
outside these three categories, approximately 30% of the 
labor force in the Memphis Area, and over 69% of the job 
seekers whom TDES was supposed to serve.

The undisputed evidence revealed that the tests 
at issue were fashioned and used in a manner entirely con­
trary to the applicable legal requirements.

Exhibit 3. 
Exhibit 39. 
Id.

7



(1) The written tests were, to a large degree, general

intelligence tests used, with slight modification, for a 
variety of positions. The interviewer test was described 
by the WIN counselor as "comprehensive," covering "every­
thing from psychology, through, it seemed, math, through 
logic, any type of reasoning." The content of the inter­
viewer written examination was essentially the same as
that for employment counselor I, and, apparently, for jobs

_ /in other state agencies. Because of the content of the 
examinations, a white applicant with neither experience 
nor training in either interviewing or counseling was able 
to score above the cut off on written examinations for both 
interviewer and counselor I, while a black applicant who

Exhibit 86, Deposition of Mary Beth Wallace, p. 7.
Id., p. 8; Exhibit 80, Appendices 2 and 3.

__/ Exhibit 92, Deposition of Robert Chaffin, p. 19. "[W]e
would have one test that is know[n] among the people in state 
government as the Big Five Test . . . .  If the test is passed 
by an applicant, it would qualify that applicant for five 
different jobs within state government that are jobs, for 
example, and I'm not sure these are included in the Big Five, 
like welfare worker, interviewer in Employment Security, coun­
selors in Welfare and Employment Security, and this sort of 
thing. See also Exhibit 80, Validation Studies for Job Classes 
in the Department of Employment Security, pp. 3-4.
_/ Exhibit 86, Deposition of Mary Beth Wallace, pp. 2-8.
Miss Wallace's training was in elementary education; prior 
to passing the tests she had taught school for a year and 
worked as a sales manager for Welcome Wagon, International.

c?
o



had several years of experience assisting with referrals 
at TDES, and had taken 24 weeks of specialized training
sponsored by TDES, was unable to do so. Test scores of 
successful applicants bore no comprehensible relationship 
to their education. Such a use of a generalized test 
for a variety of different positions was precisely the 
defect condemned in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S.
424 (1971) and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, U.S.

(1975).
(2) The Department of Personnel fixed the passing 

score on these tests at 70, or, for the 4 digit score in 
Exhibit 2B, 7000, which it viewed as corresponding to the 
level sufficient to enable the applicant to completely 
perform the job at issue. The Department of Personnel 
believed that all applicants with such a score should, as 
a practical matter, be considered for each vacancy.

__/ Testimony of Emma Batchlor, March 22, 1974, pp. 12-23.
The term "pass" is used in the sense of scoring high enough 
to be considered for the job (in the top 3 or 5), not merely 
above 70.
__/ The average testscores of successful applicants for
interviewer jobs, by education, was as follows:

Years of Education Average Score
Less than High School Degree 7287 
High School degree 7969 
High School and some college 8102 
College degree 7981 
College degree and graduate work 7939

Exhibit 2-B.
__/ Transcript of Hearing of March 29, 1974, p. 120;
Exhibit 92, Deposition of Robert Chaffin, pp. 36-37.



Tennessee statutes, however, require the use of a different 
cut-off. To be eligible for consideration for a promotion, 
and applicant's score must be among, or equal to, the top 
3 scores of other employees seeking a promotion. If the 
position is to be filled by either promotion or hiring a 
new employee, the applicant's score must be among, or equal 
to, the top 5 scores. Thus the operative passing schore 
varies in three independent ways. First, it depends on the 
scores of whatever other individuals happen to be seeking 
the job at the same time. Thus between December, 1969, and 
June, 1972, the "passing" score on the interviewer test varied 
from a high of 9000 to a low of 7799. The employees at the 
top of the eligible list one month might be ineligible for 
the same job a few weeks later. Second, the passing score 
depends on what other individuals happen to be seeking the 
job in the same geographical area. Thus applicants who might 
be at the top of the eligible list if they lived in Memphis 
could be ineligible for the same job because they lived in 
Nashville. Third, when an agency such as TDES wishes to

_/ Tenn. Code Anno. §§ 8-3208, 8-3209. The different rules 
for promotions and hires apparently derives from the whim of 
an irate Tennessee legislator. See Transcript of Hearing of 
March 20, 1974, p. 121.
_/ The Manual for Test Administrators and Monitors prepared 
by the Tennessee State Department of Personnel, notes, "The 
score required to be among the top 5 applicants on a register 
varies considerably, depending upon the number of vacancies 
which are filled from the register and the number of applicants 
for the position. In some cases, there are so many applicants 
relative to the number of vacancies that scores in excess of 80 
are required in many locations before an individual is likely 
to be considered. In other cases, particularly outside urban
areas of the State, individuals obtaining scores as low as 70 may have a good opportunity for employment." P. 15, Exhibit 80. The higher standard for urban areas has an adverse impact on 
blacks. Blacks are over 37% of the population in the Memphis area, but only __% of the state population. Exhibit 39, p. 1.



fill a vacancy, it can ask for and use either a promotion 
list, consisting solely of present employees, and choose 
among the top 3, or an "area" list including non-employees 
and choose among the top 5. Thus a current employee might 
be eligible if the first list is used but, because there 
were higher scoring non-employees, ineligible on the second 
TDES is free to ask for and use either a promotion or an 
area list.

Even if the content of the examinations is related 
to job performance, the cut-off score used to determine 
eligibility must correspond to the skill level necessary to 
"perform adequately" the job at issue. Watkins v. Scott 
Paper Co., 530 F.2d 1159, 1180 (5th Cir. 1976). The courts 
have repeatedly struck down hiring or promotion procedures 
where the minimum standard was unjustifiably high. Thus, 
though height and weight are relevant to the work of police­
men or firemen, in the sense that a midget could not handle 
the job, the courts have repeatedly invalidated height and 
weight requirements which went beyond a level of adequacy 
and thus eliminated disproportionate numbers of women or 
Mexican-Americans. See League of United Latin American 
Citizens v. City of Santa Ana, 11 EPD 5 10,818, pp. 7425-27

__/ Transcript of Hearing of March 20, 1974, pp. 116-119;
Exhibit 92, p. 15. In December, 1968, Mary Ann Richardson 
ranked 7th on the area list and 1st on the promotion list.
There is also a variation in the geographic region covered by 
the area lists, some being denoted (Memphis) "Area," District 
and State. The reason for this variation is unknown. See Exhibit 
45; Exhibit 92, Deposition of Robert Chaffin, pp. 24-25.
__/ See also American Psychological Association, Standardsfor Educational and Psychological Tests, p. 66.

w



(C.D. Cal. 1976), and cases cited. Similarly, while both 
experience, and intelligence may bear on an applicant's 
ability, an employer cannot require greater experience or 
intelligence than is actually necessary to do the job. 
Afro-American Patrolmen's League v. Davis, 503 F.2d 294, 302 
(6th Cir. 1974) (experience requirement excessive); E.E.O.C. 
v. Detroit Edison Co.. 515 F.2d 306 313 (6th 1975) (test 
scores cut off unnecessarily high). In Walston v. County 
School Board of Nansemond County, 492 F.2d 919, (4th Cir.
1974), Mr. Justice Clark condemned as arbitrary a cut-off 
score of 500 on the National Teacher Examination which had 
been established, not because it corresponded to the needed 
skill level, but to avoid attracting teachers who had not 
met a similar cut off in other school districts. 492 F.2d 
at 925. A fortiori a cut off score that varies cannot meet 
the statutory requirement. Sims v. Sheet Metal Workers,
489 F .2d 1023, 1026 (6th Cir. 1973).

In the instant case there is no claim that the 
test is used to eliminate only those applicants who are 
unqualified to perform the given job. On the contrary, though 
the defendants maintain that any applicant scoring over 70 
(7000) is in fact qualified, applicants are ineligible for 
consideration unless they score far higher. The use of a 
widely varying cut-off score that can change according to 
a variety of factors, none of them related to the skill of 
the applicant or the demands of the job, is nothing less 
than arbitrary capricious. If Tennessee had established a



height or weight requirement for state troopers, fixing 
the minimum standard at whatever the 3 tallest and 5 heaviest 
applicants happened to stand and weigh from day to day, this 
Court would not hesitate to strike down such a rule. The 
instant variable cut-off is equally unlawful.

The use of even a fixed cut-off score that purports 
to eliminate all but the "best qualified" has been widely 
condemned. Watkins v. Scott Paper Co., 530 F - 2d 1159, 1180-81, 
n. 29 (5th Cir. 1976). Such a use of an examination to exclude 
all but one, or a handful, of the qualified applicants, in­
volves an excessive reliance on the test expressly disapproved 
by the United States Civil Service Commission, see p. , 
infra,and the American Psychological Association. Standards 
for Educational and Psychological Testing, p. 61. The best 
professionally validated test or standard can indicate no more 
than whether or not a single skill is present at a leval suf­
ficient for adequate job performance and the fashioning of even 
such a test is invariably difficult and often impossible. A 
test or other mechanical procedure which purported to select 
the "best" individual or individuals from a group of eligibles 
would have to take into consideration all relevant factors and 
accord to each a numerical score and weight. A truly exhaustive 
list of relevant considerationswould often be virtually endless.
Most relevant human traits, unlike typing speed, cannot be

_ /assigned a numerical value in any meaningful manner. And no

__/ This problem is well illustrated by the defendant's method
of quantifying education for certain scores. Each year of high 
school is worth 10 points, each year of college 36 points, a bachelor's degree is worth 2 points and a master's 3. No con­
sideration is given to the applicant's grades or major or the



scientific method now or ever likely to be known to man
would provide a basis for assigning relative numerical
weights to education experience, dedication or compassion.
Relative rankings on a test of a specific skill may well
provide assistance to the employer in making an employment
decision, but a test which purported to make that decision

_ /for him would be inherently incapable of validation.
(3) Title VII forbids the use of a test or other 

selection procedure, even if job related, it it establishes 
a standard of eligibility that was not in fact applied to 
and met by all white applicants in the past. Section 1607.11 
of the E.E.O.C. Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures 
expressly condemn the use of such new standards.

continued
school attended. Thus an applicant who attended junior college 
for 5 years and never graduated would outrank one who graduated 
at the top of his class at the University of Michigan after 4 years. See Exhibit 80.
__/ In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Flaherty. 11 EPD f 10,624
(W.D. Pa. 1975), the court noted that " [Wjhile the content of the 
test 'has been shown to be job related, there is no evidence that 
a higher score on the test is any better measure of successful 
performance of the duties of a police officer than a lower score." P. 6602.

w c



This Court disapproved the application to blacks of standards 
more stringent than met by existing white employees in Sims
v. Sheet Metal Workers, 489 F.2d 1023, 1026 (6th Cir. 1973). 
Such an increase in standards is inherently discriminatory 
in and of itself, and, since whites who do not meet the new 
standard are already performing satisfactorily the job at 
issue, conclusively demonstrates that the test is not required 
by business necessity. Stamps v. Detroit Edison Co., 365 
F.Supp. 87, 118 (S.D. Mich. 1973).

The cut-off score now required for applicants for 
appointment as a TDES interviewer is substantially higher 
than those in the past. During the most recent six month 
period for which lists of eligibles were provided, the minimum 
score for an interviewer was 8700; among the more than 40 
interviewers now employed by TDES in Memphis only 4, all 
white, could have met this standard. Among the 14 white 
interviewers promoted prior to 1964 the average test score 
was 7867; none of them could have met the standard being 
applied in 1972.

Moreover, the test for interviewers has changed 
significantly in recent years. Prior to 1964, and for an 
undetermined number of years thereafter, the "test" for 
interviewers was a combination of a written test and a score 
based on education and experience. The written test accounted

__/ Exhibit 45, Requests Nos. 7907, 8203, 7828, 8377,
cover the period from June to December, 1972.
_/ Exhibit 2-B.

These

S



for half of the score and education and experience for the 
rest. At some later date, not revealed by the record, the 
interview test was made entirely written. Virtually all 
other jobs at TDES are based, at least in part, on ex­
perience and education. Prior to 1964 a substantial 
majority of all interviewers were drawn from lower ranking 
jobs at TDES, a pattern readily attributable to the nature 
of the test. Since TDES at that point was segregated, the
pool of employees at the Prospect Avenue office which most

_ /promotions were made was all white. But by 1970 the pool 
of employees at TDES below the rank of interviewer was 
over 50% black. At that point TDES altered its previous 
practice and began to hire virtually all its interviewers 
from outside the agency. This was accomplished both by 
excluding experience as part of the interviewer test and 
by using area rather than promotion lists. In jobs above

See Exhibit 80, Appendix 2. 
See Exhibit 6.

__/ Exhibit 2-B. Among the 18 TDES interviewers originally
appointed as interviewers prior to 1964, 13 had held lower 
jobs at the agency.

See p. , supra.
__/ Among the 18 TDES interviewers named to that position
since 1970, only 3 had previously held any position with 
the agency. Exhibit 2-B. See Transcript of Hearing of 
March 20, 1974.
__/ See Exhibit 45.



interviewer experience continues to be a , and often the 
critical, factor in selection, but the use of area lists 
based on a purely written test prevents blacks from ac­
quiring the needed experience at the entry level interviewer 
position. This change in the nature and use of the test 
effectively cut off to lower ranking black employees the 
opportunity to promote to interviewer and above which had 
long been enjoyed by whites.

(4) Even if the written tests employed by TDES were 
job related, their use would still be unlawful if other 
"selection devices, without a similarly undesirable racial 
effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest 
in 'efficient and trustworthy workmanship'". Albemarle 
Paper Co. v. Moody, U.S. , , (1975); Officers
for Justice v. Civil Service Commission, 11 EPD 5 10,618, 
pp. 6576-78 (N.D. Cal. 1975). In the instant case such an 
alternative selection procedure was both familiar and of 
proven effectiveness —  promotion of experienced lower level 
personnel into positions as interviewers and up the line of 
progression to higher paying jobs. This alternative was 
well known to the management at TDES; of the 20 supervisory 
personnel, 10 had begun at TDES below the rank of interviewer, 
working as clerks, typists, or interviewing clerks.

The jobs of lower ranking, and largely black, 
personnel clearly provide experience and skills in the day- 
to-day operators of TDES which no outside applicant could

Exhibit 2-B, pp. 6-8.



possess. Interviewing clerks work with and under the
supervision of interviewers,assisting applicants, helping
to conduct aptitude tests, and, when necessary, "taking
orders for job placements from employers, interviewing,
coding, and referral of applicants, and supervising other
personnel." Employment agents assist interviewers and
other professional staff in a variety of ways, advising
applicants on the nature of the TDES programs and collect-

_ /ing information on applicant training and needs. The 
employment agent positions were established with a federal 
grant for the express purpose of providing on-the-job and 
other training to individuals who could not meet the usual 
testing requirements, so that they could be promoted into 
higher skill jobs. Since 1970, however, only 2 interview­
ing clerks have been promoted into interviewer jobs; although 
interviewer clerk is now a predominantly minority job with 
only 1 white to 5 blacks, both the promoted interviewing 
clerks were white. No employment agent has ever been pro­
moted to a position as an interviewer, counselor, employer 
relations representative, or supervisor.

__/ Exhibit 6(a).
__/ Id.

Transcript of March 20, 1974, p. 93. 
Exhibit 2-B.

__/ The only job into which employment agents have been
promoted is typist. Id.



A This unexplained abandonment of the past practice 
of internal promotion was clearly unlawful.

The sole defense suggested by the defendants to 
these discriminatory practices was an assertion that Tennessee 
officials, although wishing to authorize consideration of any 
applicant with a score over 70, had been advised by unnamed 
officials of the United States Civil Service Commission that 
they must continue to use the variable top 3-5 cut-off rule. 
The District Court properly attached no significance to this 
purported defense. The alleged direction from the Civil 
Service Commission officials was inadequate to explain the 
use of unvalidated tests, the alteration of the interviewer 
test, or the abandonment of in-office promotions. Moreover 
any such direction by a Civil Service official clearly was 
neither authorized nor binding.

The Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970,
U.S.C. § , which gives the United States Civil
Service Commission limited authority over federally funded 
state agencies, authorizes the Commission to "issue such 
standards and regulations" as are necessary to carry out 
the statutory purposes of the Act. Those purposes include 
selecting and advancing employees on the basis of their 
ability and "assuring fair treatment of applicants and 
employees in all aspects of personnel administration without 
regard to political affiliation, race, color, national origin, 
sex, or religious creed." U.S.C. Neither the

__/ Transcript of Hearing of March 20, 1974, pp. 120-121;
Exhibit 92, Deposition of Robert Chaffin, pp. 9-10.



statute nor the regulations issued thereunder, 5 C.F.R.
§§ 900, et seq., require a state agency to refuse to con­
sider for promotion qualified applicants who do not fall 
in the top 3 or 5 or any other group on a test. The Com­
mission’s Guidelines for Evaluation of Employment Prac­
tices (1974), expressly warns against such excessive 
reliance on tests.

Tests, like any other measure, should 
be used as only one indicator of com- 
petance . . . .  In the final analysis, 
selection from a number of job applicants 
is a matter of judgment based upon all 
the information about the applicant's 
qualifications relative to the job re­
quirements . You must remember to look 
at the whole individual, not just one 
specific characteristic. 5 5(b)(1).

The Guidelines enunciate a strong preference for promotion
on the basis of on the job performance. The Commission's
Guide for Affirmative Action (1972) urges that,

Career ladders be established whenever 
possible to permit movement of capable 
lower level employees to positions of 
greater responsibility as the employees 
develop. The system should be designed 
so that unnecessary barriers do not 
impede the progress of clerical or other 
nonprofessional employees who are capable 
of performing at a higher nonprofessional 
level or at the technical or professional 
level. P. 3.

This is precisely the sort of promotional opportunity that 
has been eliminated at TDES over the last decade.

Although the defendants urged that the 70 cut-off 
was appropriate to distinguish between applicants who were 
and were not qualified to perform a given job, they made no

claim that differences in test scores above 70 bore any re­
lation whatever to the comparative abilities of qualified



applicants to perform that job. Under such circumstances 
the Civil Service Commission regards the use of relative 
rankings as improper. The Commission's Memorandum on 
Federal Policy on Remedies Concerning Equal Employment 
Opportunity in State and Local Government Personnel Systems 
states:

The terms "less qualified" and "better 
qualified" as used in this memorandum 
are not intended to distinguish among 
persons who are substantially equally 
well qualified in terms of being able 
to perform the job successfully . . . .
In some job classifications . . . many 
applicants will possess the necessary 
basic qualifications to perform the 
job . . . .  The selection procedure 
should be as objective and job related 
as possible, but until it has been shown 
to be valid for that specific purpose, 
it must be recognized that rank ordering 
does not necessarily indicate who will 
in fact do better on the job. Exhibit 
19, pp. 4-5.

Under the undisputed facts of this case the use of the vary­
ing cut-off rule was clearly contrary to Commission policy.

_/ Indeed, the desire of the Department of Personnel
officials to use only the 70 figure as a cut-off suggests 
they held the contrary view.
_/ Admittedly policies stated in such memorandum and
publications are of less force than formal regulations.
The informal advice of Commission officials is of no 
legal significance. Of course, in the event of a conflict 
between Commission policy or regulations and the strictures 
of Title VII, the latter must prevail.

~L< t



Since the adverse impact of the defendants' test
was not disputed, the burden was on the defendants to 
establish that the tests had "a manifest relation to the 
employment in question." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 
U.S. 424, 432 (1971); Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody,
U.s. , (1975). "The Equal Employment Opportunity
Act of 1964 is concerned with the consequences of employment 
practices, and a test which is designed and intended as a 
neutral measure of job—related skills and knowledge may 
violate the Act if its actual use furthers racial discrimina­
tion." Sims v. Sheet Metal Workers, 489 F.2d 1023, 1026 
(6th Cir. 1973). The defendants thus were required to show 
that their tests were "demonstrably a reasonable measure 
of job performance." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S.
424, 436 (1971); Douglas v. Hampton, 512 F.2d 976, 984-85 
(D.C. Cir. 1975) .

The defendants, however, offered no evidence whatever 
to establish that their tests were in any way job-related.

/ The Defendants 1 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions 
of Law was silent on this issue.
_/ This appears to be a regrettably common problem among 
state and local governments. In 1975 the United States 
Commission on Civil Rights noted that "A 1970 National Civil 
Service League survey of the state of the art of civil service showed that almost no civil services had ever validated any, 
selection process to determine if, in fact, there was a direct 
relationship between test results and job performance. The 
Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort —  1974 V.5. To Eliminate 
Employment Discrimination, p. 179, n. 552.



Although the defendants had a full thirteen months to prepare
their defense after the March,1974 hearing at which the
plaintiffs' case-in-chief was presented, the evidence adduced
by the defendants at the April, 1974, hearing dealt solely
with the question of discrimination in referrals. A report
prepared by the defendants in 1973 indicated a study was
being prepared of the validity of some of the tests for the

_ /jobs in question, but no validation studies were ever sub­
mitted. In a 1973 deposition the Director of Intergovernmental 
and Employee Relations for the Department of Personnel stated 
that "we have not been completely satisfied with the validity 
of some of our tests," and that the Department had hired a 
testing expert to head a group of 17 to inquire into the 
validity of the Department's tests, but no evidence was 
ever offered as to the progress or results of this inquiry.

_/ Exhibit 80, portion entitled "Validation Studies for 
Job Classes in the Department of Employment Security." Re­
garding the tests for interviewer and employment counselor I 
positions, the report stated that the design for the study 
was "not complete" and that there was no target date for 
completion of the study itself. P. 3. The design for a 
study of the tests for supervisory positions was still in­
complete, and no target date established for the study 
itself. P. 4. No validation study was apparently contem­
plated for the positions of employer relations representa­
tive or employment counselor II and III. Id.
_/ The District Court, in its opinion of September 25, 1975,
noted that "Validation studies in connection with these tests 
were being made at time of trial." P. 10.



Since the defendants had made no effort to validate the 
tests whose adverse impact on minorities was acknowledged, 
Griggs and Moody required that the further use of those 
tests be enjoined.

The failure of the District Court to enjoin the 
disputed tests in compliance with Griggs and Moody was 
neither excusable nor intelligible. Judge Welford acknow­
ledged the adverse impact of those tests, the failkre of 
the defendants to validate the tests, and " [n]eed for 
improvement . . .  in the positions of manager, interviewer
and ERR." The District Court's refusal to act appears to
have rested in large measure on its belief that the tests

_ /had not been deliberately designed to exclude blacks; the 
Supreme Court in Griggs, however, expressly rejected the 
contention that the use of a test was only unlawful if the 
test were devised or employed with an intent to discriminate. 
401 U.S. 424, 432. The District Court also expressed a hope

Memorandum Opinion, September 25, 1975, pp. 4, 15.
__/ Id., pp. 15 ("There was no bad faith indicated by TDES
with regard to black employment opportunities following a 
seasonable opportunity to comply with the provisions of Title 
VII enacted in 1964."), 17 ([It has not in any event, been 
demonstrated that blacks have been, for racial reasons, de­
liberately or by design omitted or eliminated from qualified 
eligibility lists by any of the defendants.")
__/ "[G]ood intent or the absence of discriminatory intent
does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms 
that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and 
are unrelated to measuring job capability. . . . Congress 
directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment 
practices, not simply the motivation."

"l/Mr



that the defendants would take voluntarily action to so 
modify the test procedure as to give blacks an opportunity 
to advance into positions from which they had previously 
been excluded; such a hope, no matter how well founded, 
cannot relieve a federal court of its responsibility to enjoin 
unlawful conduct. On the admitted facts the use of the tests 
for the positions of interviewer, manager and employer rela­
tions representative, was in clear violation of Title VII; 
the District Court should be directed on remand to prohibit 
the use of those tests and to fashion an appropriate non- 
discriminatory procedure for filling vacancies in those 
positions.

_ J  Id., pp. 16-17 ("The court would hope and expect that 
state civil service procedures might be liberalized so as 
to afford still greater opportunities to qualified state 
employees of TDES to advance and to be hired in the first 
instance).
_/ in this case it was entirely without foundation.
Although this action had been pending for six years when 
it was finally decided by Judge Welford, the defendants 
had not modified in any manner the disputed selection 
process. The proportion of blacks hired since 1970 as 
managers, interviewers, and employer relations representa­
tives (8.3%) was lower than the proportion of blacks in 
those jobs prior to 1970 (9.7%).



III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DIRECT 
THE DEFENDANTS TO TAKE EFFECTIVE ACTION TO 
DISCOVER, AND WITHHOLD SERVICE FROM, EMPLOYERS 
WHICH ENGAGE IN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits 
any form of racial discrimination in federally assisted 
programs. The Department of Labor specifically prohibits 
any discrimination on the part of federally assisted em­
ployment services. 29 C.F.R. part 31. The Department's 
implementing instructions absolutely forbid a state employ­
ment service to make referrals to or assist any employer 
which engages in discrimination. The Memorandum of the 
Solicitor provides:

Making selections and referrals, even on 
a non-discriminatory basis, on any orders 
placed by employers who discriminate is a 
violation. No referrals of any kind can, 
therefore, be made to an employer who wont 
hire minorities in any particular jobs, or to 
employers who discriminate in any of their 
employment practices. Exhibit 18 57.

Section 1294 of the Federal Employment Security Manual
similarly admonishes:

It is a violation of title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act and its implementing Regula­
tions (29 C.F.R. part 31) for the State 
employment security agency to refer an 
applicant to an employer who the State 
knows or has reasonable grounds to believe 
is engaged in discriminatory employment 
practices. . . .  It does not matter that

__/ "No person in the United States shall, on the ground
of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from par- 
tocipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected 
to discrimination under any program or activity receiving 
federal financial assistance."



the local office makes the referrals on 
a non-discriminatory basis to such employers, 
nor does it matter that the employer may only 
have discriminatory employment practices in 
certain jobs. Local offices are prohibited 
from serving such employers in any manner.
Exhibit 16, p. 1294.

The Complaint alleged that the defendants had continued to 
provide services to discriminatory employers and had failed 
to comply with the procedures mandated by section 1294.

The undisputed evidence in the court below revealed 
that the TDES enforcement program consisted of little more 
than soliciting an unsubstantial promise of nondiscrimina­
tion from employers who had expressly asked for referrals
of a particular race or sex. Section 1294 provides that an 
interviewer must refuse to accept a job order which contains

_ vsuch a discriminatory specification. At TDES, however, 
interviewers will accept such orders, but are instructed to 
bring them to the attention of the Director of the Employer 
Services Unit. This procedure is preferred by TDES because 
it is "tactful" and keeps down "misunderstanding and irritation." 
If such a report were made to the Director the employer would 
be placed temporarily on a controlled list and further handling 
of its job orders would be temporarily suspended. Thereafter 
one of the employer relations representatives, all of them 
white, would confer with the employer about the problem caused
/ Complaint, V(h) and (i) __/ Exhibit 16, p. 1294 (2) .

__/ Transcript of Hearing of March 20, 1974, pp. 181-200;
Exhibit 90, Deposition of George Murphy, pp. 25 et seq.



by the request. To remove his name from the control list 
and assure renewed processing of his job orders the employer 
need only withdraw the discriminatory order and promise 
orally not to discriminate. Although the Federal Employment 
Security Manual requires a vigorous and detailed scrutiny of 
the subsequent behavior of employers who have filed discrimina­
tory orders, the Directors of the Employment Services Unit 
conceded there were "only one or two cases where we have done

Then Mr. Murphy or someone might go out and the 
employer says 'Well, I won't do that any more,' 
or something, and, then, he gets put back on or 
gets taken off the controlled list, in other words?
Yes. "

Exhibit 91, Deposition of Charles Radford, p. 79,
"A: . . .  The employer calls back further on and tells

our visiting man 'I didn't understand, and I know 
it is a violation of the law, and so forth,' and 
then we re-instate him."

Exhibit 81, Deposition of Leland Dow, p. 14,
"A: Well, we ask them for their stand on the matter . . . and we explain the attitude he should have 

so far as the law is concerned. In most cases, 
certainly the larger companies, they say, oh, yes, 
that is quite right. We are sorry for that. This 
was not meant to be, and we'll straighten the 
matter out . . . .

"Q: Okay. So, after you reserve the statement, quote,
'We'll straighten the matter out,' does that close 
the case?

"A: Yes."
Transcript of Hearing of March 20, 1974, pp. 189-190. See
also id. 195; Exhibit 89, Deposition of George Murphy, p. 44.
_ J  Exhibit 16, pp. 1294 (2), (3), (6)-(8).

3



intense investigation." An employer would only be permanently 
refused service if it obstinantly refused to withdraw its dis­
criminatory job order; nor surprisingly agency officials 
were able to recall no more than two or three instances in 
which that had occurred.

The attitude of TDES officials towards complaints
by applicants of employer discrimination was at best equivocal. 
A typical white counselor testified that such grievances would 
be disregarded.

q ; . . .  Do you ever have people who come and say
'I have been trying to get any kind of job, and 
X can't because of my race? Have you ever had 
any of those kind of situations?

A: I guess they want some specific thing, and they
may complain some employer won't hire them because 
of it.

Q: Because of their race. What do you do in those
situations?

A: There isn't anything I could do about it.

Transcript of Hearing of March 20, 1974, p. 192.
Id., p. 187.
Exhibit 89, Deposition of George Murphy, 
49, 60, 63.

pp. 30, 34,



Q: You don't make any contact with the employer?
A: It depends on whether —  I don't investigate

these things. That would be something for the 
N.A.A.C.P. [sic] or some other organization."

The TDES Equal Employment Opportunity representative explained 
that, although there were signs in the Memphis office announcing 
that discrimination was unlawful, he had directed that neither 
his name nor that of other local officials be placed on the 
posters as the appropriate persons to contact about a complaint 
of discrimination, explaining that he "was getting complaints 
sufficiently enough". The Director of the Employer Services 
Unit, who is responsible for assuring no service is provided 
to discriminatory employers, stated he was unaware of any 
procedures to advise applicants that they can or should 
report instances of employer discrimination to TDES.

Section 1294 expressly contemplates that information 
regarding discrimination by employers served by a state employ­
ment service can and should be obtained from "public and private

_/ Exhibit 83, pp. 33-34. See also id., pp. 36-37. The 
witness explained that she would report only discriminatory 
job orders, but not a complaint by a mere applicant.

Exhibit 88, Deposition of Raymond Neal, p. 26. 
Transcript of Hearing of March 20, 1974, p. 183. 
Id., p. 194.



organizations or individuals, State and local fair employment 
practice agencies, or reports of agencies responsible for 
enforcing non-discrimination, such as the DHEW Status of 
Title VI Compliance Interrogatory Report." Although E.E.O.C. 
officials contact TDES at least once a week to obtain informa­
tion on employers under investigation by the Commission, such 
an investigation does not result in a similar inquiry by TDES, 
and TDES does not solicit from the local E.E.O.C. office the 
identity of employers the Commission believes guilty of dis­
crimination.

It is the clear policy of TDES to take no action 
if an employer uses a test or other selection procedure which 
violates Title VII. The Director of the Employer Service Unit 
explained that employer testing "is not our province and we 
don't make any particular study of what they do before accepting 
the applicant." The Assistant Manager of the Memphis office 
states that it was not the policy of his office to determine 
the validity of tests used by employers served by TDES. He

Exhibit 16, p. 1294(2).
_/ Exhibit 88, Deposition of Raymond Neal, pp. 65-66; Exhibit 

-89, Deposition of George Murphy, p. 28; Exhibit 91, Deposition 
of Charles Radford, pp. 123-24. It is the policy of TDES not 
to notify E.E.O.C. if it learns that an employer is engaging in 
discrimination. Hearing of March 20, 1974, p. 197; Exhibit 89, 
Deposition of George Murphy, pp. 42, 62-63. This is clearly 
contrary to § 1294. See Exhibit 16, p. 1294(5).
_/ Exhibit 89, Deposition of George Murphy, p. 65.

Exhibit 91, Deposition of Charles Radford, p. 26.



noted that employer relations representatives would inform 
a company that "if they did use their own tests, they were 
leaving themselves wide open for possible suit in the future," 
but explained that the representatives would conduct no in­
vestigation of those tests because "we are not a police 
agency at all." When a TDES investigation of an employer 
who apparently rejected disproportionate numbers of females 
revealed that this was due to the use of a test, the inquiry
was ended. In the early 1970's, at the direction of the 
Department of Labor, TDES discontinued its practice of using 
tests to screen applicants for certain positions because the 
Department had found the tests were not job related. Shortly 
thereafter the employers instituted there own tests to screen 
applicants for those jobs; although this was well known to 
TDES officials, no inquiry was ever conducted into the validity 
of these new tests. This acknowledged policy of serving em­
ployers regardless of whether they used illegal tests was clearly

Id., p. 25.
_/ "[w]e found that they were, they were following their
own rules and testing procedures, and this accounted for what 
appeared to us to be some sort of discrimination, and they 
convinced us that ti was not discrimination because of sex, 
but, that people were being eliminated because of the test 
they had, which we had no control over." Hearing of March 20, 
1974, p. 192.
_/ Ehibit 89, Deposition of George Murphy, pp. 64 et seq
Exhibit 91, Deposition of Charles Radford, pp. 5-28.

1



unlawful. Section 1294 prohibits service to an employer who 
discriminates in any manner, and the Solicitor's Memorandum 
expressly disapproves service to an employer which sets job 
specifications "which are not necessary to performance" and 
which have an adverse impact.

Although the District Court was well aware that 
TDES1 alleged failure was one of the primary issues at the 
class action hearings, the court inexplicably failed to 
decide that issue. The court's September 25 opinion notes 
the existence of severzl of the problems noted above, including 
the failure to scrutinize employer tests or to notify E.E.O.C. 
of instances of discrimination. Aside from these brief des­
criptions, however, the opinion is entirely silent on this 
issue. Since the record demonstrates a systematic and in­
excusable failure on the part of TDES to comply with Title 
VI, this aspect of the case should be remanded to the District 
Court with instructions to fashion appropriate injunctive relief. 
Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

__/ Exhibit 18, p. 12, § 6.
__/ See Memorandum Opinion, September 25, 1975, p. 2.



IV. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING
PLAINTIFF'S INDIVIDUAL CLAIM

(a) The Absence of Specific Findings
Certain basic facts regarding plaintiffs individual 

claim are not in dispute. On February 18, 1969, Mildred 
Ewing, then a counsellor at TDES, received by telephone a 
job order from R.C.A. for a position entitled "Traffic Analyst 
The job requirements, as related to Mrs. Ewing by Mr. Robert 
Phillips of R.C.A., included a minimum of two years of college 
and an age limit of 27-35 years. These requirements were 
duly recorded on the TDES order form, Exhibit 33. The job 
was given the DOT code 184 x 168, the "x" indicating that a 
trainee was acceptable. Id.

At a later date in February Mrs. Ewing, after reviewing 
her files, selected Mr. Robert G. Smith, a white male, for 
possible referral. Mr. Smith was then living in indiannapoli 
and had never filled out a TDES referral application, but had 
submitted a resume. Smith had never been given a DOT code. 
Mr. Smith's previous experience was as a supervisor in a food 
company and, earlier, as a warehouse manager. Mr. Smith had 
never indicated any specific interest in shipping or traffic 
jobs, and there was no evidence that he had ever attended 
college. Mrs. Ewing nonetheless believed Mr. Smith was 
qualified and called Phillips to suggest he be interviewed. 
Phillips stated he was not interested in interviewing Smith.

On or about March 20, 1969, Mrs. Ewing mailed to R.C.A. 
the resume of Marvin Avnet, also a white male. Mr. Avnet



was then 44 years old, 9 years over the R.C.A. limit, and was 
coded for a different position, DOT 184.118. Mr. Avnet had 
never attended college, thus failing to meet another R.C.A. 
requirement. Mr. Avnet was then employed as an office 
manager at a firm not connected with shipping. His last 
experience in shipping was from 1958 to 1961 at Kelly Air 
Forde Base in Texas. Mr. Phillips subsequently indicated he 
was not interested in interviewing Avret.

On March 7, 1969, after hearing a radio advertisement about 
this job placed by TDES, plaintiff called TDES and asked to be 
referred. Because the college plaintiff had attended was well 
known to be an all-black institution, and because plaintiff 
reported having heard about the job on a radio station catering 
primarily to black listeners, Mrs. Ewing could not have failed 
to know plaintiff's race. After inquiring about plaintiff's 
education and background, Mrs. Ewing refused to refer him on 
the ground that he was unqualified. Mrs. Ewing advised that 
plaintiff lacked sufficient experience in shipping. Plaintiff 
asked that he be referred anyway so that he could try to convince 
the employer, whose name Ewing declined to disclose, that he could 
do the job. Ewing persisted in her refusal but agreed to meet 
with plaintiff at the TDES office on March 11.

__/ See Exhibit 32-36; Hearing of March 22, 1974,10-38. pp.



On March 8, 1969, plaintiff went to the TDES and obtained 
a referral application, which he took home and filled out. On 
March 10, 1969, plaintiff went to the TDES office to meet with 
Mrs. Ewing. Mrs. Ewing was apparently out to lunch, and 
plaintiff was referred instead to Mrs. Sarah Askew, Mrs Ewing's 
supervisor. Mrs. Askew examined plaintiff's application and 
the job order and refused to refer plaintiff to the job on the 
ground that he was unqualified. She refused to disclose the 
identity of the prospective employer on the ground it was the 
policy of TDES not to reveal the names of employers to un­
qualified applicants. Plaintiff persisted in asking for a 
referral, and asked whether Mrs. Askew was refusing to refer 
him because of his race. Thereafter Mrs. Askew purported to 
make a telephone call to Mrs. Phillips, who allegedly advised 
her the job had already been filled. Plaintiff believed this 
telephone call and asked Mrs. Ewing, who had by then returned 
from lunch, to call the employer. Mrs. Ewing refused.

The disputed job at R.C.A. was eventually filled by Bert 
Fletcher, a white male who learned of the opening through a 
newspaper advertisement placed by R.C.A. itself. The actual 
responsibilities of Mr. Fletcher were those of a trace clerk, 
keeping track of shipments in transit, expediting shipments,

__/ See Exhibits 35,36; Transcript of Hearing of March
20, 1974, pp. 35-132; Transcript of Hearing of March 22,1974, pp. 10-80.



/u
i

and locating shipments which had gone astray. His work 
"didn't really have anything to do with rates," although 
this was apparently part of a program of on-the-job train­
ing for work as a traffic assistant. The R.C.A. plant
closed in 1970, and Fletcher never did any work other than

_ /
tracing. Fletcher's previous experience had been calculating

_ /rail rates for a grain company; plaintiff's TDES application
revealed his prior experience including management of a major
air freight terminal, with 20 subordinates, supervising the
shipment of cargo worldwide via both military and civilian

_ /
shippers. No claim was made below that plaintiff was unqualified,
or less qualified than Fletcher, for the job which Fletcher 
actually performed.

The defense asserted by Ewing and Askew was that they, as well 
as Phillips, had misunderstood the position involved to be 
primarily concerned with analysing traffic rates, and to require 
substantial and recent experience with and knowledge of the air, 
rail and truck rates in the Memphis area. This, they asserted, 
was why they believed plaintiff was unqualified. Although neither 
Smith nor Avret were qualified by this standard, Ewing insisted 
she only learned of this requirement after she had attempted to 
refer them. Plaintiff asserts that this defense is a mere

/ Exhibit 78, Deposition of Bert Fletcher, pp.15-18. 
/ Id. p.6
/ Exhibit 31.



pretext, and that defendants refused to refer him to the R.C.A.
_ /

job because of his race.
The evidence in the District Court thus presented three 

critical factual questions:
(1) Did Mrs. Ewing refuse to refer plaintiff because 

of his race, or because she believed that he was 
unqualified?

.(2) Did Mrs. Askew refuse to refer plaintiff because 
of his race, or because she believed that he was

Of unqualified?

£,(3) Was the R.C.A. position filled prior to either 
March 7, 1969, when plaintiff first inquired 
about it, or on March 10, 1969, when the defendants

¥

\ allegedly learned it was filled.
- ̂ ^The District Court's opinion is devoted largely to a summary 

of the facts not in dispute. While the District Court 
apparently concluded that the job was filled on March 4, 1969, 
it made no specific findings of fact on the first two questions.

A resolution of these issues by the District Court is 
especially necessary in light of the inconsistences in the defense 
testimony. Mrs. Askew testified she believed plaintiff un­
qualified because the words "heavy experience in rates "allegedly 
appeared on the job order, "which, from working with R.C.A., we

/

/ Exhibits 35 and 36; Hearing of March 22, 1976, pp.26-35, 46-65. 
/ Order of December 20, 1974.



_ /knew they meant local rates." But Mrs. Ewing, who claimed
to have written those words, understood them otherwise, since

_ /
she referred a white whose shipping experience was in Texas.
There were substantial differences in the statements which Askew,and
Phillips gave the E.E.O.C. in 1969, and then testimony in 1974.
In 1969 Askew said that when she called R.C.A. Phillips told her

_ /
the job was still open; in 1974 she testified Phillips told

_ /her the opposite. In 1969 Phillips said he could not remember
any call from Mrs. Askew about Mr. Shipp, and believed Shipp

_ /would have been qualified for the job. In 1971 Phillips told
counsel for defendants he believed Shipp was unqualified, but said no

_ /
thing about the job being filled prior to the Askew call; in
1974 Phillips recalled the Askew conversation in great detail, was
certain the job had already been filled, and was ambiguous about

_ /plaintiff's qualifications.

/ Hearing of March 22, 1974, p.46, 65-66 
/ Id., pp.
/ Exhibit 35
/ Hearing of March 22, 1974, pp.
/ Stipulation of Rebuttal Testimony, pp. 1-2. 
/ Exhibit 38
/ Hearing of March 22, 1975 pp. 80-114.



/

The District Court's failure to make findings of fact 
on the central disputed facts of the case, not required by 
Rule 52(a), is reversible error. "Where the trial court 
fails to make findings, or to find on a material issue, and 
an appeal is taken, the appellate court will normally vacate 
the judgment and remand the action for appropriate findings 
to be made." 5A Moore's Federal Practice, 552.06 [2]; see 
United States v. Claycraft Co. 408 F.2d 366 (6th Cir. 1969); 
McClanahan v. Mathews,440 F.2d 320 (6th Cir. 1971). The
conclusory statement that plaintiff had "failed to demonstrate

_ /prejudice or discrimination" is inadequate, for it discloses 
neither the factual nor legal bases of the conclusion and is 
to general to permit meaningful appellate review. It is of 
course possible that the District Court reached this conclusion 
because it believed the job had been filled by March 4 and that 
plaintiff could not have gotten the job regardless of the intent of 
Ewing and Askew. The District Court apparently believed that 
specific findings as to the intent of Askew and Ewing was un­
necessary because, even if their actions were racially motivated, 
plaintiff would not be entitled to back pay under Title VII because, 
unknown to the defendants, the job in question was already filled 
on the dates when they refused to refer him because he was 
allegedly unqualified. [Id., pp. 4-5]. While these circumstances 
might preclude an award of back pay, they would not preclude an 
award of punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. §1981. Johnson v.
Railway Express Agency, U.S.

-- C-*—•s'Sr'ioA- v~

, / n.

7 -/ Order of December 20, 1974, p.4.
tx*

(197 )

Sfe V77.



In a case where an employment service, unaware that a job 
has already been filled, refuse to refer an applicant on 
account of race, such punitive damages would seem the appro­
priate remedy. Since the complaint alleges that this is, 
at the least, such a case, and the District Court failed to 
make findings of fact on the disputed facts, the order of 
dismissal should be reversed.

(b) The Class-wide Discrimination
After the conclusion of the March, 1974 hearing 

the District Judge indicated his intention to resolve plain­
tiffs individual claim only in the light of his ultimate 
conclusions as to the claim that the defendants had system­
atically discriminated against blacks. In December, 1974, 
however, the District Court, without affording counsel any 
prior notice or an opportunity to proposed findings of fact 
and conclusions of law, entered sua sponte an order dismissing 
the individual claim. Had no further action been taken on the 
individual claim, the December 20, 1974, decision would re­
quite reversal because it expressly and necessarily disregarded 
the evidence of systematic discrimination, and because thepro- 
cedures followed were inherently unfair. In its September 25, 
1975, order, however, the District Court summarily reaffirmed 
its previous decision in the light, inter alia, of its con­
clusion that there had been no systematic discrimination.

Hearing of March 22, 1975, pp. 129-130. 
Memorandum Opinion, September 25, 1975, p. 17.



While the 1975 decision may have rendered moot the defects 
of the 1974 order, the later decision suffered from an 
equally serious defect, for it rested on an erroneour view 
of the discriminatory nature of the defendants1 general 
practices .

The central issue underlying the events of 1969 
was whether the defendants had refused to refer plaintiff 
to the position at R.C.A. because of his qualifications or 
because the job was filled, or whether these reasons were 
merely a pretext used to cloak a decision based on plain­
tiffs race. Whether the reasons advanced by an employer 
to justify his conduct were in fact the basis for that con­
duct, or were a pretext to hide more sinister motives, can 
rarely be assessed without reference to the company's "general 
policy and practice with respect to minority employment". 
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804-05 (1973). 
That is particularly so in a case such as this where there 
is a dispute as to both the qualifications for the job and 
the qualifications of the applicant, and the assessment of 
both is necessarily subjective and flexible. In Franklin v. 
Troxel Manufacturing Co., 501 F.2d 1013 (6th Cir. 1974), 
the District Court, examining the disputed employment decision 
in isolation, had dismissed the action of the individual 
plaintiff. This Court reversed for a new trial in light 
of the company's history of discrimination and McDonnell 
Douglas. 501 F.2d at 1015-16.



CONCLUSION

For the above reasons the decisions of the 
District Court of December 20, 1974 and September 25, 
1975, should be reversed, and the case remanded with 
instructions to fashion appropriate relief for the 
class claims, and to make new findings on the in­
dividual claim.

Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM E. CALDWELL 
.520 Woodward Bldg.
733 Fifteenth Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20005

JACK GREENBERG 
ERIC SCHNAPPER 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

ELIJAH NOEL, JR.
Ratner, Sugarmon, Lucas & Salky 
525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants



Average Rates By Occupation Group

Occupa­
tion
Group Description White Male
0-1 Professional, 

technical and 
managerial $3.42 (774)

2 Clerical & Salas 2.74 (736)
3 Service 2.20 (230)
4 Fanning, 

Fishery and 
Forestry 2.61 (7)

5 Processing 2.60 (88)
6 Machine Trades 2.84 (501)
7 Bench Work 2.62 (134)
8 Structural

Work 2.92 (917)
9 Miscellaneous 2.43 (1338)

Total $2.77(4725)

Black Male White Female Black Female

$2.86 (450) $3.01 (73) $2.25 (164)
2.42(1228) 2.39 (962) 1.99(1498)
2.00(1650) 1.51 (166) 1.53(4021)

2.14 (11) - 2.88 (1)
2.42 (308) 2.00 (14) 1.95 (68)
2.40 (864) 2.30 (19) 2.30 (171)
2.37 (441) 1.95 (104) 1.92 (697)

2.51(1071) 2.08 (8) 1.75 (29)
2.24(5151) 1.95 (61) 2.37 (332)

$2.32(11174) $2.26(1407) $1.74(6981)



Average Rate Differential 
Between White and Black Workers

Occupation
Group Description

Male
Differential

Female
Differential

Total
Differentia

0-1 Professional, technical 
and management $0.56 $0.76 $0.69

2 Clerical & Sales 0.32 0.41 0.36
3 Service 0.20 -0.2 0.24
4 Farming, Fishery and 

Forestry 0.47 - 0.40
5 Processing 0.18 0.05 0.17
6 Machine trades 0.44 0.43
7 Bench Work 0.25 0.03 0.23
8 Structural Work 0.41 0.33 0.43
9 Miscellaneous 0.24 -0.42 0.11

Total $0.45 $ 0.52 $0.54



1/Allocation of Work Force

D.O.T. First Digit White Males Black Males White Females Black Females
Highest paid

category 16.3% 4.0% 5.1% 4.7%
Second highest 19.4% 9.5% 68.3%

1/
2.3%

Second lowest 28.3% 46.1% 5.9% 0.4%
Lowest paid

category 4.8% 14.7% 11.7% 57.5%

1 / Category 4 is excluded because of the insignificant number of 
referrals involved.
2/ This is an average of categories 7 and 9.



Allocation of Work Force

O c c u p a t i o n  G r o u p W h i t e  M a l e B l a c k  M a l e W h i t e  M a l e B l a c k  F e m a l e

0 - 1 1 6 . 4 % 4 . 1 % 5 . 1 % 2 . 3 %

2 1 5 . 6 % 1 0 . 2 % 6 8 . 5 % 2 1 . 5 %

3 4 . 8 % 1 4 . 9 % 1 1 . 8 % 5 7 . 6 %

4 0 . 2 %

*
 

i—1 •o

0 0

5 1 . 9 % 2 . 9 % 1 . 0 % 1 . 0 %

6 1 0 . 7 % 7 . 8 % 1 . 3 % 2 . 4 %

7 2 . 3 % 4 . 0 % 7 . 4 % 1 0 . 0 %

8 1 9 . 5 % 9 . 7 % 0 . 6 % 0 . 4 %

9 2 8 . 5 % 4 6 . 3 % 4 . 3 % 4 . 8 %

1 0 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 %



Allocation of Trainees
Distribution of Trainees

DOT Description
Average Wage 
All Referrals

WhiteMale Black
Male White

Female Black
Female

Group
0-1 Professional, etc. $3.09 8.3% 3.6% 5.2% 2.4%
2 Clerical & Sales 2.32 32.7% 14.2% 77.9% 40.7%
3 Service 1.68 7.8% 14.9% 7.4% 29.6%
4 Fanning, etc. 2.34 0.1% 0.02% 0 0.2%
5 Processing 2.37 3.0% 6.4% 0.4% 9.7%
6 Machine Trades 2.52 6.0% 6.9% 2.0% 3.1%
7 Bench Work 2.13 6.4% 7.5% 3.0% 7.2%
8 Structural Work 2.68 11.5% 11.9% 0.1% 0.8%
9 Miscellaneous 2.28 23.8% 34.2% 3.7% 6.2%

Total 2.23 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: Exhibit 63(a)



Major Male Occupations
White Males Black Males

D.O.T. Code Description
Average Rate 
(Number of Referrals)

Average Rate 
(Number of Referrals) Differentia 1

189.168 Junior Executive $3.15 (232) $2.85 (149) $0.30
222.387 Shipping & Re­

ceiving Clerk 2.53 (106) 2.36 (329) . 17
223.387 Stock Clerk 2.41 (106) 2.30 (291) .11
289.358 Commodities sales­

man 3.06 (78) 2.61 (22) .45
311.875 Waiter 1.82 (30) 1.73 (182) .09
355.878 Hospital attendant 2.26 (35) 2.22 (80) .04
372.868 Guard 2.22 (44) 2.37 (156) (.15)
381.887 Porter 1.86 (12) 1.93 (410) (-07)
382.884 Janitor 1.63 (10) 1.98 (206) (.35)
620.281 Auto mechanic 2.50 (84) 2.42 (98) .08
810.884 Welder - arc 3.37 (37) 3.06 (77) .31
812.884 Welder - arc and gas 3.19 (36) 3.12 (76) .07
828.281 Electronics mechanic 3.04 (89) 2.51 (29) .53
860.381 Carpenter 3.21 (83) 2.79 (35) .42
860.887 Carpenter's helper 2.27 (97) 2.23 (115) .04
904.883 Tractor trailer 

truck driver 3.02 (114) 3.40 (216) (.38)
905.803 Truck driver - heavy 2.58 (102) 2.43 (281) .15
906.883 Truck driver - light 2.16 (170) 2.18 (516) (.02)
915.867 Gas station attendant 1.92 (144) 1.93 (195) (.01)
922.883 Industrial truck 

operator 2.56 (114) 2.36 (566) .20
922.887 Loader 2.41 (287) 2.26(1.,630) .15
929.887 Trash collector 2.44 (229) 2.25 (1,063) .19

$2.57(2,239) $2.29(6,722) $0.28Total



Major Male Occupations: 
Distribution of Males By Wage Rate

Hourly Wage 
$3.00 and over 
$2,50-$2.49 
$2.00-$2.99 
$1.50-$l.99

Portion of White Males 
29.88%
18.13%
43.23%
8.76%

Portion of Black Males 
5.49%
3.49%
76.24%
14.78%



Major Female Occupations

White Females Black Females

D.O.T. Code Description
Average Rate 
(Number of 
referrals)

Average Rate 
(Number of 
referrals) Differential

201.368 Secretary $2.62 (162) $2.25 (68) $0.37
204.588 Clerk typist 2.06 (75) 1.98 (165) .08
211.468 Cashier II 1.82 (29) 1.70 (147) .12
213.582 Key Punch 

operator 2.42 (44) 2.23 (76) .19
219.388 Record Clerk 2.17 (157) 2.02 (182) .15
299.468 Cashier checker 1.95 (14) 1.87 (104) .08
301.887 Day worker - servant - 1.39 (676) -
306.887 Laundress - 

servant 1.55 (2) 1.43 (754) .12
311.878 Waitress 1.42 (88) 1.53 (819) (.11)
313.381 Cook - general 1.86 (3) 1.50 (156) .36
314.381 Cook - short 

order 1.58 (6) 1.60 (327) (.02)
318.887 Kitchen helper, 

dishwasher 1.56 (6) 1.42 (220) .14
323.887 Maid 1.42 (4) 1.59 (177) (.17)
355.878 Hospital attendant 1.79 (9) 2.46 (133) (.67)
381.887 Charwoman 1.96 (8) 1.56 (165) .40
729.884 Electrical unit 

assembler 2.42 (15) 2.10 (171) .32
920.887 Hand packer 2.05 , ,.(24j 1.81 (133) .14

Total $2.13 (646) $1.62 (4,477) $0.51



Major Female Occupations 
Distribution of Females By Waqe Rate

Hourly Wacre Portion of White Females Portion of Black Females

Over $2.25 34.21% 0
Over $2.00 73.83% 14.07%
$1.50 and under 14.24% 40.33%



Comparative Wages 
Major Female Occupations

Black Average Wage as Percent of White
Job TDES Referrals National
Secretary 85.8% 106.3%
Typist 96.1% 102.6%
Record Clerk 93.0% 101.2%
Keypunch Operator 92.1% 101.2%
Cashier 93.4% 101.2%
Cook 80.6% 89.5%
Waitress 107.7% 111.6%
Private Servant 103.6% 102.7%

; 1970 Census of the Population, v. 1,
Table 228.

Source: Table



Jobs With Average Wage 
Rates, By Race, Differ By Over 50 cents 
_______________ An Hour_______________

D.O.T. Code Description
Average White 
Wage (Number 
of Referrals)

Average Black 
Wage (Number 
of Referrals) Difference

091.228 Secondary school teacher $3.30 (21) $2.34 (32) $0.96
160.188 Accountant 4.64 (46) 3.32 (13) 1.32
195.108 Social worker, etc. 3.76 (14) 2.56 (29) 1.20
205.368 Personnel clerk 3.31 (18) 2.27 (27) 1.04
210.388 Book-keeper 2.60 (87) 2.06 (30) .54
289.358 Commodities salesman 3.05 (79) 2.38 (31) .69
289.458 Salesperson, general 2.66 (30) 1.99 (59) .67
600.280 Machinist - general 3.66 (22) 2.87 (20) .79
616.380 Machine set-up man 2.87 (25) 2.33 (94) .54
637.281 Air conditioning, etc., 

mechanic 3.01 (35) 2.35 (5) .66
638. 281 Maintenance mechinic 3.87 (59) 2.99 (17) .88
729.381 Electrical systems 

tester 3.38 (3) 2.34 (52) 1.04
741.884 Painter 3.20 (3) 2.57 (60) .63
824.281 Electrician 3.93 (44) 2.67 (12) 1.26
828.281 Electronic mechanics 3.04 (89) 2.51 (29) .53
869.887 Miscellaneous construc- 

i tion worker 2.58 (21) 2.01 (45) .57



Male and Female Average Wages 
Major Clerical and Service Jobs

D.O.T. Code Description
Average Male 

Waae
Average Female 

Waae Difference
160.188 Accountant $4.57 $3.26 $1.31
195.108 Social worker, parole 

officer 3.03 2.81 .22
201.368 Secretary 3.08 2.50 .58
203.588 Typist 2.77 2.11 .66
206.388 File Clerk 2.90 2.52 .38
209.588 Clerk typist 2.47 2.00 .47
210.388 Book-keeper 2.71 2.37 .34
213.582 Key Punch Operator 2.41 2.29 .12
219.388 Record clerk 2.66 2.08 .56
219.488 Accounting clerk 2.71 2.44 .27
223.387 Stock clerk 2.32 1.84 .48
289.458 Salesperson - general 2.86 1.89 .97
299.468 Cashier-Checker 2.80 1.87 .93
311.878 Waiter-Waitress 1.74 1.51 .23
313.381 Cook - general 2.18 1.59 .59
314.381 Cook - short order 1.89 1.50 .39
235.862 Switchboard operator 2.43 2.05 .38

Total $2.45 $1.82 $0.63



Male and Female Average Wages:
Major Industrial Occupations With Greater Number Of 
________________ Female Referrals

D.O.T. Code Description
616.380 Machine set-up worker
706.887 Metal Unit Assembler
729.381 Electrical system 

tester
729.884 Electrical unit 

assembler
787.782 Sewing machine operator
920.885 Machine packager
920.887 Hand packager

Average Male 
Wacje Average Female 

Waqe Difference
$2.71 $1.77 $0.94
2.16 1.86 0.30

3.17 2.21 0.96

2.79 2.12 0.67
2.22 1.71 0.51
2.29 1.85 0.44
2.04 1.84 0.20



I

Referrals To Major Jobs 
____Over 90% Black_____

Number Number
D.O.T. Code Description of Whites 

(Average Rate) of Blacks 
(Average Rate) Portion

Black
301.887 Day worker - 

servant 0 680 ($1.38 100%
306.878 Laundress and Laundryman 2 ($1.55) 758 ($1.42) 99.73%
313.381 Cook - general 15 ($2.19) 207 ($1.73) 93.24%
314.381 Cook - short order 11 ($1.66) 401 ($1.57 97.33%
318.887 Kitchen helper, 

dishwasher 18 ($1.64) 348 ($1.54) 95.08%
323.887 Hotel maid 4 ($1.42) 183 ($1.59) 97.86%
303.782 Clothes presser 1 ($2.00) 57 ($1.71) 98.27%
381.887 Charwoman & porter 20 ($1.90) 575 ($1.82) 96.63%
382.884 Janitor 10 ($1.63) 208 ($1.98) 95.41%
619.885 Misc. Machine 

operator 4 ($2.43) 50 ($2.53) 92.59%
729.381 Electrical systems 

tester 3 ($3.38) 52 ($2.34) 97.54%
741.884 Painter 3 ($3.20) 60 ($2.57) 95.23%
919.887 Car washer attendant 3 ($2.02) 40 ($1.67) 93.02%

Total 94 ($1.92) 3,619 ($1.60) 97.46%



Referrals To Closely Related Jobs

D.O.T. Code Description
Average
Rate

White
Referrals

Black
Refer:

184.118 Manager - Transportation, etc. $3.08 0 24
184.168 Manager - Transportation, etc. 3.75 13 0

262.358 Salesperson - Food 3.29 11 2
263.458 Salesperson - Clothes 2.11 9 22

289.358 Salesperson - Commodities 2.85 79 31
289.458 Salesperson - General 2.21 30 59

804.281 Sheet Metal Worker 3.31 24 9
804.886 Sheet Metal Worker - Helper 2.49 9 0

860.381 Carpenter 3.08 83 35
860.887 Carpenter-Helper 2.24 97 115

899.281 Maintenance Man - Factory 3.27 39 8
899.381 Maintenance Man - Building 2.55 45 24

950.782 Sanitary Engineer 3.13 14 9
950.885 Sanitary Engineer 2.02 0 12



Wage Rates
Referrals To Trainee Jobs 
______ Exhibit 65_______

Applicant Education White Male Black Male White Female Black Female
0-8 years $2.07 $2.09 $1.68 $1.83
9-11 years 2.20 1.98 1.77 1.79

High School 2.40 2.30 2.08 1.91
Above High School 2.40 2.51 2.09 2.07

Total 2.38 2.26 2.06 1.91
Number of Referrals 6,819 11,599 2,218 6,075

All Whites $2.30 (Women are 24.5%)
All Blacks $2.03 (Women are 34.3%)



Exhibit 62 Referrals 
Of Applicants With More 
Education Than Requested 
______ By Employer______

Years Requested
Race Sex 0-8 9-11 High :School
White Male 2,313 (19.5%) * 559 (5.3%) 1,242 (22.7%)
Black Male 4,971 (23.4%) 1,515 (10.5%) 1,237 (37.2%)
White Female 175 (4.0%) 86 (2.1%) 670 (36.0%)
Black Female 3,545 (34.2%) 568 (8.2%) 599 (39.4%)

* Percent is portion of pool with more than the needed education 
(e.g. 9 plus years for a 0-8 job) who were referred to a job for 
which overqualified.

Exhibit 62 Referrals 
Of Applicants With Less Education Than Requested 
______ By Employer_______

Years Requested
Race Sex 9-11 High School 12 plus
White Male 30 (7.1%) * 279 (14.8%) 50 (0.7%)
Black Male 71 (2.6%) 613 (6.4%) 16 (0.07%)
White Female 5 (6.5%) 75 (16.6%) 12 (0.46%)
Black Female 37 (2.8%) 287 (5.9%) 8 (0.07%)

♦Percent is portion of pool with less than the needed education who 
were referred to a job for which unqualified.



Over Qualified Trainees Referrals To Trainee Jobs Requesting 0-8 
Years of Education of Applicants 

With More Than 8 Years of Education (Exhibit 65)

Race/Sex Number of Referrals
Applicants With Over 8 Years Education

White Male 1,341 7,237
Black Male 5,168 11,806
White Female 179 2,385
Black Female 2,199 6,138

Ratio
18.5%
43.7%
7.5%

35.8%



Portion of Applicants 
Referred To Job Requiring Less 

Education Than They Had 
(Exhibit 62)*

Education of Applicant Beyond

Overqualified Referrals

Race/Sex 9-11 Years or Hiqh School Hiqh School
White Male 59.8% 54.1% 77.0%
Black Male 67.7% 63.7% 90.0%
White Female 50.2% 13.1% 90.4%
Black Female 72.2% 51.9% 91.5%

Underqualified Referrals
portion of Applicants Referred to Job Requiring More 
Education Than They Had 

(Exhibit 62)*

Education of Applicant
Race/Sex 0-8 Years 9-11 Years High School
White Male 27.3% 24.0% 1.5%
Black Male 17.6% 14.2% 0.15%
White Female 14.8% 30.8% 0.71%
Black Female 12.8% 11.8% 0.18%

* Both charts disregard jobs for which employer requirements 
were unknown.



Wage Rate of Referrals 
_____By Education____

Wage Rate

Education
White
Male

Black
Male Difference

White
Female Black

Female Difference
0-8 $2.25 $2.02 $0.23 $1.59 $1.49 $0.10
9-11 2.41 2.07 .34 1.87 1.62 .15
High School 2.57 2.32 .25 2.37 1.85 .52
Above High School 2.60 2.57 .03 2.20 2.07 .13

Total 2.55 2.25 .30 2.24 1.77 .47



Referral Rates 
Whites and Blacks With 
Different Education

SIC Code Description (sex) Whites: 
0-8 years

Blacks:
High School

01 Agriculture - crops (males) 2.05 1.89
15 Building Construc­

tion (males) 2.73 2.36
16 General Construc­

tion (males) 3.09 2.53
17 Construction - 

Special Trades (males) 2.39 2.37
23 Apparel Manufactur­

ing (males) 2.50 1.98
24 Lumber Manufactur­

ing (males) 1.87 1.84
26 Paper Manufacturing (males) 2.86 2.80
28 Chemical Manufac­

turing (males) 2.45 2.33
32 Store Processing (males) 2.73 2.32
33 Primary Metal Manu­

facturing (males) 3.10 2.97
36 Electrical Machinery 

Manufacturing (males) 2.50 2.43
37 Transportation Equi- 

ment Manufactur­
ing (males) 3.32 2.89

38 Precision Instrument 
Manufacturing (females) 2.34 1.90

39 Miscellaneous Manu­
facturing (males) 1.98 1.96

59 Miscellaneous Retail (males) 2.37 2.01
65 Real Estate (males) 2.16 2.05
65 Real Estate (females) 1.85 1.75
70 Hotel Services (males) 1.72 1.69
76 Miscellaneous Repair 

services (males) 2.35 2.12



SIC Code Description (sex)
Whites: 
0-8 years

Blacks:
Hicrh School Graduates

79 Recreation Services (females) 2.07 1.74
86 Club Services (males) 2.00 1.95
88 Private Household 

Services (males) 2.00 1.90



15

17

20

28

35

42
50
53
55

58

73
88

91

Referral Rates:
SIC Groups With Over 

1000 Referrals 
High School Graduates

Average Rate - Males Average Rate
Description White Black Difference White Black
Building Con­

struction 2.69 2.36 .33 2.51 2.03
Construction - 

special trades 2.52 2.37 .15 2.17 1.79
Food Manufactur­

ing 3.28 2.97 .31 2.59 2.61
Chemical Manufac­

turing 2.81 2.33 .48 2.33 2.11
Machinery Manu­

facturing 3.44 3.24 .20 2.35 2.13
Motor freight 2.53 2.31 .22 2.24 2.36
Wholesale Trade 2.34 2.17 .17 2.20 1.92
Retail - General 2.00 1.99 .01 1.92 1.76
Retail - Cars & 

Ga s 1.91 1.87 .04 2.03 1.81
Retail - Restau­

rants 1.83 1.67 .16 1.37 1.33
Business Services 2.50 2.08 .42 2.09 1.89
Private Household 

Services 1.93 1.90 .03 1.30 1.42
Government 2.80 2.58 .22 2.47 2.36



Referral Rates: 
SIC Group; With Over 

1000 Referrals

Average Rate - Males Average Rate - Females
White Black White Black

SICCode Description
(Number of Referrals) 
$

(Number of Referrals) 
$

Dif­ference
$

(Number of 
Referrals) 
$

(Number of Referrals) 
$

Dif­ference
$

15 Building Construction 2.59 (482) 2.32 (834) .27 2.46 (26) 2.08 (16) .38
17 Construction - Special Trades 2.49 (438) 2.29 (1,077) .20 2.24 (60) 1.75 (33) .49
20 Food Manufacturing 3.10 (727) 2.88 (1,035) .24 2.56 (118) 2.54 (166) .02
28 Chemical Manufactur­ing 2.79 (281) 2.33 (469) .46 2.33 (145) 2.11 (155) .22
35 Machinery Manufac­turing 3 .44 (422) 3.10 (649) .34 2.47 (79) 2.14 (62) .33
42 Motor Freight 2.49 (492) 2.26 (1,457) .23 2.20 (67) 2.43 (66) (.23)
50 Wholesale Trade 2.45 (1,447) 2.11 (3,963) .34 2.21 (429) 1.92 (534) .29
53 Retail - General 1.99 (472) 1.98 (813) .01 1.88 (175) 1.75 (440) .04
55 Retail - Cars & Gas 1.94 (456) 1.87 (917) .07 1.97 (92) 1.80 (126) .17
58 Retail - Restaurants 1.85 (168) 1.66 (688) .19 1.38 (197) 1.31 (2,438) .07
73 Business Services 2.52 (571) 2.05 (891) .47 2.10 (275) 1.89 (429) .21
88 Private Household Services 1.96 (85) 1.95 (596) .01 2.25 (46) 1.39 (1,742) .86
91 Government 3.05 (287) 2.44 (463 .61 2.48 (220) 2.31 (614) .17



* , I

... i ‘) h  >. .1 r .. i . <-‘-'or... ...... ....
’ P’l  t C  u H £ r« T A f(0 a L F fcK K A L C F k E G f S T E n e b V M L 1 vToli A L s '

11 / il • C r 'A r 'A C T c K IS I IC S  
NO t,r APPLICANTS

itioi v i L u a l S P l a c  to  

. I i O NACM LULTUKAL.......
.  T O T A L  . ------
.  API L I -  . ........
.  C A M S  .
. A V A I L -  ................ .. CVLR .  3 C A Y S .
.  Ab l e  .  TOTAL .  J  O A Y S .u K L C S S .K c l / J L A K .  SEASON

AGRICULTURAL
' K £Yt K*Ac.. .....

TU JO B  .  > PP K fcN - .

AG .  N01*11\0 • SH IP  •

. P LA C E-.......... . HL»«I "]
I .AU-JOES .R E S U L T

————— ———————• LF Jtt>
.C M  .  Olrii.R .  C c V tL

A .
O J t l j  03i.l a (i 3<?2 U 
HJ.i< 5

a
IN TAKE
LAME IN 0.9 T H i l n  OmN 
E S oUTP.EACH 
k c LFA  . t

1636/6U
US 7 3

C t U .  E • F • G - * H • i  .  J  « K •
l6 Z 6 L T / 2 , r  2 55  7 7 7 ?  2 50 n '  l i i  r .........b ‘ <!5'‘ " i ? T r - . V I v 4 7 r J 7 r  "G 6  *■*"■ 7 5  - / e r

V £ ra Z J O 7 # ? 0  2171 £ ,5 ) 23 0  5C> 10 X. 0 S O X ^  570 1 0 6 9  7
n  f T r -  f V ’ ........ O ' - ......... -------- -tf— ......... u * : ............. 15 " 7 --------0 ..............  1 *-

135 7  132 7 6 A? <J - 2tl /2.

. N0" £? ' 26' U 16‘.J .... :
G 71

l i jo a i i i u 3 T 7  13 5 ‘  ilT7? l  / l> “ 0 u - 6 2 / 1  0 yj — si
.. 0 3 c 3 5 uTHcP. 0 5 5 3 7 7  9 5 7 ^  9 1 2 V  5 / 0 - 0 1 - 215 6 5  0 5 / c 2i

C 3 >6.1 HOt l6 2 t l i" /-2r' 2 5 5 7 7 2 ?  25l3^f1T 250 5 2 - ' 10 *2. 0 57 2 j r 6 15 6 l#S 7  0 75 / O 0 128'
" 0 3 .  s i 0<ULk 22 662l/o7&  5 9 6 /2 .7  670 7 / Z  29 Z H 0 - 0 13 Y 1371 ' C 3  ‘ " a 1 51

u sES.T £ 2 -  .>•■) 957(. 235^1512 V 6P 1631 V V V  121 / 7 6 **- 0 ■36/?- 3 8 56  * 0 67 C 0 120'
j  3>.5 5 6G -S6 7 U d 2 77  159 J  / 1165 V ?  25 X. 1 - 0 3~5r~ 30 0 7 7 ' *  "o- 2

y
0 ’ U

. i i  <i C! A 3- li'i 1036 VA/ 269 <S 3  236 ,4 /  62 £ 3 - 0 5 "2. 66 0 /6  4  0 2 0 1*
** 5 5-«-A 6 2 9 ( 7 /  1 2 1 7 7  10 9 /7  31 5 G _ 0 1 7  ' 1 a 7 £"3- o c w «

U ->( 1 J oa A !0  I.VEK ' ’ 93 </C> 2 j  ^  2 J  J  2 y U - 0 ---------- A . / . . . j 6 /3  (0
'■•■■■/ ........ F "
6 1 9 6 / ^ 5  7  <0

0 — V i

0 1 .  7 3 SI A l 0 2 6 l5 ^ ( T 2 5 5  7 7^7 2 6 1 3 4 ^ 5  250 <T 2 10 2 . 0 572-^ 75 > o 0 2S
o J , d j M IL .  ' 011 6.3.233 ' 55 j T T g - t T / H  1 3 l i T C 6 "2 u 60 l 7 3 ?a 5  ru 7 ^ /Cl 0 1 9!

' 0 3 . 1 a F l H-.IL 0165/575" 1002 2 o 3> 957/75"  112 1 Z- 6 — 0 5 / 2 f . 9 J  - 7 0  ' 0 2 — 0 13.

0 3 S0 HIGHFST SCHOOL GKAOE I 6 2 6 i y / i ^ 5 9 / 7 2 £f 2 6 1 3 & /S '  250  S ' 2. 10 -2. 0 5 7 i f
' *  !

75 / O 0 .........
0 3 j 'V5 0 - 7  ■ • ' 756/2-7 100 2 3  157 2.1 62 3 1 - u 239 3 ^  lO '3 / 0 t|

' LOiOO £ -1 1 5556/7^0 9 7 1 /V 7  911 / 3 V  117 7 - 0 10 3 2 1 1 7  0 2 / y 0 lu"
" O J lo S 12 76 71 X37/T l G 0 o t m O 2  5 3 ? T  70 ’ 0 — 0 7 7 o 7  mj 3 7 5 0 T6.

O a l l O L'VfK 12 260075"'’ / 3 6 0 / 7 6  320/ ff'F' 21 ^ . . 7  . .7 ______ 0 ________ 2A7-7-. 1 0 0 l  ^75" '0 6 — 0 3-

031 l 5 A F.S lC.ci.Cb I62fcl5"',2i/'2557 7 i 7  2613 6 ^  2 5 0  5" V 10 * 0 5 7 2 # 6 1 9 6 /^ -5 ?  .0 75 / o 0 2tt-. . . . . .
'■ 0 J 1 2 u Ui.UAU 15735VJT7cr 2 6 ,0 f^ f>  2 3 6 7 4 / 5 "  269 5 “2: 10 -2. 0 i 6 * 3 f 6 0 0 0  -ti ..........73 F "U~

03 125 isl»K AL 520 3 2 ?  0 7 / 3  60  / ?  1 — 0 - u  ̂ J 13 6 ? 7 1 0 2 z 0 l!

0 3 130 w E lK a  o f  u n e m p l o y m e n t l 6 2 o lS 7 2 ^ 2 S 5 / 7 2 7  2 6 1 3 1 ^  250 5 " l - lo  Z 0 5 7 2 F -
(

6 1 9 4 / ( ^ 7 75 /£? 0 26'
'' 031 35 I .u Hc 15207^3 38 / 7/3 3o l/£> T 50 7" 5 1 0 ........ " 1 5 " F " " 900 3 -0-6 -70"" 7 7 u “  i [

( J I U J 1 -5 102 62357/ 1666 370 1 5 6B V 77  * 163 3 ^ 5 / 0 29 / 4 3 8 03  . 0 37 4 0 17;
; G3165 5 -1 0 1825 220 5"/ 213 16 "1- C - u GA 0 0 z

0 21 S 0 1 1 -1 4  ■ • 1 71J 75 -̂ U9 2 3  S6 2 V  7 / o - 0 5 1 220 10 3 — J i
0 315 5 1 5 -2 6 u s j T / 7  F i s  /fo 1 0 9 ~ 7 J  i t  / 0 - V H 1 2 / 0  *77 7T- T o 0 11

; Cl 3 1 -0 2 T OR Hu k E 1063 /55  9 0 / /  9o /V  6 — 0 - 0 .............. ' A / . . 2 6 0  3 4  .'0 <> 1. .. 0 2

0 3 1 6 5 L T h M C  GAUUP " 1 * l02<»l^/2^ 2 5 5 7 7 2 7  261 2 5 0  ,<"V 10 "X 0 57 2 ?  6 1 9 6 / P 5  7  0 75 /O c 26
C 31 7 J *. H 1 IF  1 5 0 /9  5«7j 7 2 2 "7 2  7 6d l  50 r«> 2 2- 0 26 2 4 / ^ 3 4  '0 10 1 0 0 l o

1 0 3 1 7 5 NKC.Ail ' ' '' 11133 0  1628 (5 1725 O '  193 — 0 - 0 29 - 6 3 3 7  -  0 05 - 0 10
" O i l  SO A.-itMCAN 1N0IAN 6 V  1 1  L~~1 0 “ 0 - 0 0 - 2 X 0 0 — c i

031 dS OK 1 c h 1AL i a  /# u o -  u 0 - 0 2 "Z. . . .   ̂ 5  .. . 0 .
1 2  7 x  0

0 — li t
031 SO CTHift 1 2 a i P "  6 V 6 Fp b — .0  - 0 U - C - • 0
0 310 5 I A A / 7 . C V .  . <! . 2 -  . . .  2. 2 _____ 0 - 0 0 ^ 2 7. 0 U — 0

I*
l u l a l O F F IC E  0109 MONTHLY YS AW TO OATt •
* E P u i 'T  NO MA7-12 FCA I’t ril UO tNOlNG 0 1 / 3 1 / 7 2  PAGE COl FOR STATE U: c ONLY ■ \



'ia AtP M ENT AND RET- LR ri AL OF R tC I S T tkEU Ihul Vl DU AL S
1 Tr h

Nu
CHAn A LT  E m I S  T I L S  

LF. A E P L I C A N T S .  T b T A L  
. A P P I . I -  
. CANTS 
■ A V A 1 L -  
.  A B LE

1 NO l V 1 DUALS P LA CK O

• 1C U L T U K A L *
. -----------------------------.  A G R IC U L T U R A L

................. .  OVER . ‘ 3 D A Y S . * - - —------------ --- -  —
TOTAL .  3 C A Y S .O K  L O S S . h tC U L A K  .  SLA SCN

K E F L K k A L  .  .
t U  J U S  • f t P P R L N - .

a g  .  n u n a g  .  s h i p  .

N A 6 -J C d S

C U M

. p l a c e -  r

.  i*- L N I 4
• R E SU LT

-----— .  CF J u b  .
U lH L K  .  O c V L L

A U
o j / U u S p a n i s h  s u r n a m e  (ijjg5 ui claimant.... .
O j i l u  V t l t r  A'l

_ E .C C E .N T L Y  S E P A R A T E D .  
u j ^ 2 o H Ai.O i  C A PPL U

U
2 b X < ? 5 i f

H 1 M

G 3 2 2 d J'.;a t LADY
C i ^ 3 G  F .J.P L  U Y a B I L  I T Y U EW EL
l i i ^ 3  5 E A l l L Y  INCOME

_0  3 2 ‘«u_  Pl.fiK _  _________
0 3 P A S  L) I S  AO VAN TAGfcil
O i i - J j  M A k - P O V E R T  Y

2bb J  /2.2.V S>t>r2 y j r  533  27>  
b - . o j 6 7  I S l  5"7

xib7b</ v&g'i 9 3 5 6 V-rYa 2 i
6 743 5"j’7 _ lU G T  /3j!  lUOo  643*W73 'i-ii & T  ’<*>3 
6 37 2  G iC >  99ofe ¥ 9 j 9

J u / p - y  6 9  £  6 S  //

0 3 . 5  5 
L> 32 6  J  
U 3 2 6 5  
832 /U0 32 7b
G s .  liO
1 ’i r  r.5 
■i .5 / V 0 
b J /  Pi

~i’ 3 )3.J 
C. 3 i  .i 5

C j H C  
u i  j  l  S 

J j  *? \ 
u n c ' j  
G 3 > 10 
O i  J i  3

H f c k P l E k  TO EM PLOYM EN T 
* G t -  TOO YLUNG 
A u E -  T G I  U L l )  _______

0 - 5 I

L A C K S  LOU S K I L L  E >P .  
H EALTH  p n G d L E K S  
PERSO NAL P . lC b L L K  
T. ANSI O k T A T lO N  
Ch I l D GAEL P^UbLEM 
C A * r  l. T i l .  FAM. HcKbfcK  
L iU ic K  BA.-l R 1 l*i\ S 
i.U 01 SCLKN 1 U L c  b A R K .

k L l F A k E..............
A I M

C O U P .  SCHOOL P R O GRAM 
i l k l j P  :U T S
u i .  A U U A l  L S   ................................................... 1 *
Ij I H l K 3

C 3 J 4 l P k OFi KAMS P A k T l L l P .  IN
_ 0 J 1-5____VO CATION AL P E H A b l L . ___

n i . S j  Mlil A - I N i T I T U I  IGN AL  
Hu I A - is J  l
i .Y L - S C H O O L  L SUMMER 
I.Y C —i HI 1 UE SCHOOL . . L 
N A C - J I I 3 S - C 0 . .T  i'. ACT

. l; j j :  5S îtiS 
C 3 J .15
L 33 7 J

7 l yt> z .

17
21 ~2j-

O
r>

22
2
1
1
0

'o
6 "

i l l  
2 . O . . . .  
1 c?

N
"6 ■ aa..... 0 "  o .....0 11 7'o ~Q p- ‘" a "" '■"<i - ----- 6

9 3 0— 0 - 5x 336 ?gr.._ C — 6 T5> o - 15
ok 1 7 5 7. 0 " 23 /■/ 1739 7<sV G — 2a 3 o — 95
3b 17 3 *2. o - 14 ? 132 4 G - 18 / 0 " 7o
lb~ l 0 0 - 2 7_ 342 l2>7 0 - 7 5 u — 22

197 y 2~~ 9 rj-- * 0 49 4754 0 48 0 lbO
53 /0 1 o 0 6 1440 0 27 0 129

116 6----- b G 17 2433 G 53 0 144
110 r b C? 0 17 25J5 0 52 c 1 J9
110 > bT---- 0 17 22-14 G 51 0 139

6 i ____ 0 0 - 0 1 3322- G — ie> • o — 5
0 — Ub

•351 £  3  76  6 7b ĉ > 2 - 0 0 l  O 172 0 0 0 11
111 . T  2. 2 d 7 7 25 ( ( 5 y . 0 u 0 a a 0 1 0 3

2 0 0 6  3 2 7  2db  < /7 28 1 V C 14 V 0 0 2 C o 3 9 0 4 5 T9
3 4 1 / * ? '  6 1 0 6 5 9

■ f f "
5 ^ 0 0 0 141 c 1 0 9

21 b <#9 4 4 / S 42 4 7 . G 0 i 9 2 0 0 3 11
4 > /  b "  4 / «f / 0 — 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0
e  a / y  9 ^ 9 ■ / ......... i! ~ G 0 0 2 2 0 0 U 1
13 Z  2 £̂> 2 0 _ 0 0 u 4 G G 0 ■ w*
4 2 5 S T 3 /  19 y

1 51  y /  i 5 ^ r
1 9 ■^7 o _ 0 c c 4 2 0 0 £ 4
12

f - -

3 o b 0 u 32 C 0 0 0

2 U ' > i £ 7 - ~ 2 1 b Z —b 94 / ' 10A
26 3 
103

2 5  /
2 <?

4 O  
0 —

0
G

4
0

5 9 5
159

0
0

u
1

G
0

Bd
6b

2 4 * 7 '  0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 w 0 0 G u u

/
0 —  
0

c  —  
u

o —  
0 '—

o —
0 —

u
0

G
0

3
1

G
0

b
0

0
b

c
cr ~ o — 0 *“ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c

i s " r  ' 72 / 3 6 9  I T - 3 T ” ‘ 0 0 i  O 1 71 ................0 " c C ............. I t
i S ' 17 ^ 16 S r _ 1 —/_____ G 0 b _ 52 0 3 0 4

0 - 0 0 w( 49 0 G c 2
0 c •o l  O 3 .0 0 G l
0 - 0 b o J G 0 0 1
1 " 0 0 0 5 G c 0 t
0 0 0 6 " 0 0 0 0 l
U , b b o — 19 G 0 u A

' C 3 . W -» L c P  Lii^l T 1 U c •r 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 b l
0 3 1.35 J L  b L  u K P 49  v 1U 7 ...........1 7 . l - i - Z . . . 0 0 0 _  c c
0 3 190 P r i . j i L l  1 CANS I T ION 0 — U ”  b ---- - 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 V
O j H b OP E ! 1 ON M A l . iS IK tA M 0-M. u c — g / ------ c 0 0 .J ________ V-. u 0 0 V

” o 3 4 i l0 .■HI C a .i e l k S 2 --- J —■ b '-- of c 0 u /  l 0 'J 0 i
__U 3 4 j i ___ O lM FK T . _ U ________ 1 - ( 0 0 b 0 ' 4 c 0 <J 1

. L C i .N l  i i E T l - .  E C 137  
iifel'.T^T *10 i3— 7— 12

MONIHLY Y:.AK TO DATE . . ..
F C h  E 1 K I u J  Lin*j I  t'm 0 1 /  J 1/  7 2 PAG t l v 2 E Ok S IA 1 b U L ONLY



:<?3ivsv1?I «1JL ' M?x:
5 K  s'*

* i ■ u
^DZ 0j)v

• C * 4 * 3 .*.:rs: ri* eo sv.:«: coisrl. * V
• r-/.*2 • v/*?• -CiV • -o?*c • f.: • i * c«* t •• -Oi”. • -:«m • c**i • cr i * •’ »r:;:’.n * IVAJU * 5J.'von-rf: a‘J • ON S5S;Slt3i.:?:7.-5 ’ h5At
- ~ o■• 3v‘u r v ' IV *i”.v row At OjrfV* j *-»••7; i \ c j v i •-; x:! v: r :• v *•.: v iDIJMAO "} 0»'C ’ ""i'C

I »

t



A1 NP 3''0 u n s TOO 30Vd 7 i / T S / T O  ONIONS OOIMXI MOd 
i iV d '  Ol MV i  A AOHlNOtf

7
6C"

— r
"-1 6 
__r>

—  n
. 1— 1. -  0
— p_ « irc  __ TOT

. . . o ^ ..... jL q j .m ______
C ^ ° T v

p
0.9

_2_
0
P
0

0 I
" 6 7

n
o
o

_p _
ST
OT
St

0
0

"X
X/

"  o ’ " " I T

. L_.7
Z 1
S
7

- *  cv- n
~ J ? J

-  P

0
0
6
c

-  o
-  o '

■- 0
- 0

I V  
-  0
_  d_  o

■t

_L

-o.
../>>.

— i C f V  -  62 - 0 -  EM  ,Q  S2 iT

7

V
p '
T ,
9  V 291

Z. t
-Jt 02 •
o'/ m

—h.-*'_____O f C U l
NVTPM f

ni y f j /  « n * i . . 3 . ? _ ...........o..........T. .7____os. Z*?? tp9 _i Z ^ 7 ? l  I loSo Z ?<Ŝ M9 ^  zs OSY ^CTV? ̂ iSS?^7jl9?M .1. :_.-. dnn’

r s ....... 7 ,  17 - p 7 c Oi* t  P. 0 , o ■
x  r r  £  oi 0 -  m O' O '? _J__v .) -  0

! 2 /T X  9 r -  r 0) P7? 1 s 0 - 0
$  DV ...̂  P2 ... 0 ■Z- ST p ‘ p 79 . . J . l  ......... 0 -  p

” 7 S  9T? z . t  f t T 0 9  i t n fP SS g/ 6? p i s
?S -67 ts r>. . . . . /  i ____ ...0.'...5to_S. 906 . _.^gST___ 0 ___ l .  « .

l‘ OtPoTV ^ 0 / 6 9 ? D O i  s t n »  ̂X-P/ V6T 9 ^ Y i S o X  OT

—  V
_ i _ ? T _S7 6 0T

7>/ P *
7 1  s * I

T z  m
. g

:_$> foot  
I C60

3 Ml

)
7 c 2 T t i  o x  ?

. . L A . - ' M - J a l - t l Z...■?..r£. Pt_...tf̂ PT. -iP/6B? P O/ ?t
0 t i t? * r T
0- 0 0 0 9c"'7s7VV6I0 -$ZiS

T p n-
J f t  v * . ................ 0

/ /
_C JL

? p
J i l .

S z  z v t
- 9 7  .(L^jST m

'3 ?  vp
J S ^ l -

0
p_

p r t o T  
— /- 9 i—
J$0/ 6 9 ?

P 
0 . 
0 ■

— *r
-S' f'f 

7 T
TOOT 

_________t ° t z .
k>[ T 7.

J i l l .

I i xt T9 CZ m  isini
7- VT o J - P 12 j_ s  077 S b h ^7pT

■ £ £  P9T Z T if lV S T  O /J 9 *9T  ^ £ 7 9 7 0 1  
. . . A ,  OS ...A *?/. T O P . .^ /  f PC ..s :< tP ? S T  7. J  os? -Ŵ PTV? Ut^S7^To?0T

- o f f/ °Y CTTm  3rT'»2s
. . .7 i -.o t . _ z  -4 -  * * ? — . ^ O ' - y p ^ s c t S T ,Z OT n3 05? ^?flV2 i,̂ iSS?̂ roST9?9T

"  7— 0
. . . / .
0 /

17
S'
St

0,  / T I ?  £  fit c
* * ? _____ je.T ............  0 .

Ol m i  ‘r d f  - f t t s  0

-  t
T

"■ %  T? JS% IC?C ?t ,/OVf loiiCP',7  
-T Z. ot S7PT 4 9 ^ 0901 l i t * Tf Vi _

M l l i t  h l i  TT6 Z X / U 6  Ot/ZvSSS 
f  ?V /T iS T  CY 0»»T LZIO(,l

iN3KA01dH3Nn

o s ? " > 5 9 r T V ?  '^t/SS?Ljpr/'jT9?9T 30VHO OCOMO

s  t i t r i  i  '€ Tfi n — ?>
________ P______Qt—f. t_

O l i ' l H  ^C>/«.57 p . ,Q {  St

I
r\l
n*. ________ s.*-tr_

—  9

/ A T i - p- - ?...~ ?— ....r....-
J > h t  7 / M  0 (

S. OT ,______  P
- Z S 1 ? Z  ^ L ^ Z I

.. .< ? iJW .:..^ . ns I...... .
O a  p T V _^ ?/6 B ? l

o') C / ’ V*- '
0 t «M.  
•0. 7 9 / o s v

/ 4
-A -I3 -

3  7 ?

0 3  t v 0 .  Mf .B f
p . . . . . . . C  . - ? . . . . .  o : . . . . .  U P T .
D O /  S t 0 l £ S I  V f , T 9

0 / S 0 ' 7 , 5 ' s t ? "
f> 0 I  / 7 V

t x  PV n •z. *, Q/> PPT
0 X  OT Z 3 o s ?

- t y  - p -  0 7 2
. . . L . i ................... . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . r . .  0 . . t  TP

X  S 0 -  e ?  ?V
Z  P 0 -  T -Z. s ?

i '  p ?  ' “ f  0 ?  S7/» Tft
1C 4 /  SOT - Z Z .T 7 1  7 *
I S  7 7  v s ?  f ? 6 V ?  / 7 / i v f O T  
S? 4^1 S V T 7 f  6 5T _ 4 ^ Z .P P t  _

I MJ A

-<5/VC, 1-  9

-  T
-  n

•* oc, _ f  Ti.. -£.J.T—  V-/.C— .X 9  P6? /  £  69T

_  3 
T
6 9
S t

^  0 M H * 1 • M

I 07  IAS) 9 * M 1 M1 0 • l  V 0 '• • " ^IMS. T O ]  1
*.........................o p r ’ ' *

• n ;T S 3 M *  
JMVM •

s n n r - o r i  ’ • i v id v f id '  • ■
* - T O V Id  * *

0 Z /  T P ?  - o
0 Z  ST “ p
6 T O tS  j j X T S

9 .  -0 - .  t L jY?-/. ».6 J.1 - - ^ i X  t  s . 
r

OT - I S  OSZ  « ? r u ?  ^ Z i S S ? ^ r L CT9?9T

7 4 ^ °  't r S O T  
■8E

- 0
I  0

/ S 
/ T

£ Z T 6 '
V) ?T

C Z .S6
" S  ST

0 _  0 7̂ 9 Z  ?ST Z  SCT
_____ 0 .......... .....................- . 0 _____„ 3 i l . .  . . 0 - 4  -J rJ -J 9

0 X  OT 0S2 l s 9 l L t ?  0b9 tor?CJ?/S;.vc*»T
<P 0 ^ 3 - 0 .T . . . i .X  PS? ^ i ? P T V ?  / z z  tS S ?  ^?tTT9?9T

• H • ■ 0 * J * 3 * p * 0

HOVNm6 '*I3HI f’O

5 • OVNOM * 9V • ’ I05V3S •MVTr.03N»<;S33 MP'SAVO T * l l l ' i l  * 319V *
• 9 A v o  r  * vv/vp • • - o i v n y

" f l o r  n i  * oV>intonoiV)Ov •    — * .................. * s i w o  * '-iVM>nv3M • • ivMnnno imovn’om • • -n-trfv*.... ............... .......... * ivioi •
030VTH S T ip O IA IP 'J l_____________________________ *

s i v v o r M
SOI I S I  vat

S O V P O J A IP M I 0 3 M 3 1 J I9 3 M  3 0  0VMM3J

^ $ 0 Q  '



c w  - . ;.. • • i

NOPtfijv dt) • rv isia’ua/vvfO * w:--x:
.

___________ __ ________ ... .  o J l i K S * J Q Z  } L l  o r / •r. - ,?* 0 “ V ' J.' 2 2 * 5 V1 *1
jr. 's:  i t ? 5* c o ? 5 !

V V • 1 X r : H • r. • j  • • :  • 3 l. • 7

i
1-.

• i _____ __________ _ __________ _ *---- ----- t  ̂  * ------- *
• v n a n • c c * e  •

- ~ • •» 
co*e •

* 1
r l  * ? •

♦ * >----- i -
• M * 2  • C* i ' l  “

* * Os’-nl r t '
• r v i  * ?«»-*y *

•
W VV311<!*T a'J • C\

: 1 * 3 H I 3  *7 0 :r ' C * • B I ' S  ‘ -  0 :j * 2 • - f t ' /  • • c - ? v • - C a * ’  * - 7 « M  ' 8eM • > * l ? i r u  • * k3At
o i d ' iv .'.ivv :;-»v? a'J Ojjvii iw.nctiv -ii i3Utilv'jvo

j  T

C



Ratio of Referrals to Placements 
Year ending January 31, 1972

Tvoe of Applicant Referral Ratio
White 2.542
Black 2.372
Walk in clients 2.471
Welfare referrals 1.637
Male 2.408
Female 2.444
Education: 0-7 1.327

8-11 2.180
12 2.614
12 2.944

Source: Tables