Lea v. Cone Mills Corporation Joint Appendix

    Nos. 14,068 & 14,069

)*t>1

IN THE
United States Court of Appeals

FO R THE FO U RTH  C IR C U IT

SHIRLEY LEA, RO M O N A PINNIX 
and ANNIE TINNIN,

Plaintiff s- Appellants,
- v. -

CONE M ILLS CO RPORATIO N ,
Defendant-Appellee and 

Cross-Appellant.

O n A ppeal from the U nited States District Court 
for the M iddle District of North Carolina

J O I N T  A P P E N D I X
J. LeV onne C hambers 

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 

Conrad O. Pearson

203/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina 

W. G. Pearson
336/2 East Pettigrew Street 
Durham, North Carolina 

Jack Greenberg 
Robert Belton 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

T hornton H. Brooks 
C. A llen Foster 

440 West Market Street 
Greensboro, North Carolina

Attorneys for Defendant



I N D E X

Page

Final Order ...........................................................................  1

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ....................  5
Findings of Fact ............................................................  6
Discussion.........................................................................  15
Conclusions of L a w ........................................................  18

Notice of Appeal by Plaintiffs .........................................  19

Notice of Cross-Appeal by Defendant ..........................  20

Complaint of Plaintiffs........................................................  20

Answer of Defendant ..........................................................  25

Order [class action] 29

Stipulation [pre-trial conference] .....................................  30

Memorandum Order [triable issues] ................................. 34-

Trial Proceedings 

Witnesses of the Plaintiffs:

Shirley Aim Lea
Direct Examination.................................................. 47
Cross Examination .................................................. 52
Redirect Examination.............................................  72

Deposition of Shirley Ann Lea— PL Ex. 12 .......... 114

Romona Pinnix
Direct Examination.................................................. 87
Cross Examination .................................................. 92

Deposition of Romona Pinnix— PI. Ex. 13 ............ 117

Annie Tinnin
Direct Examination.................................................. 74
Cross Examination .................................................  81

i



Page

Deposition of Annie Tinnin— PI. Ex. 14 122

Witnesses of the Defendant:
Mabel Miller Austin

Direct Examination.................................................. 96
Deposition of Mable Miller Austin-—PI. Ex. 16 130

Otto King
Direct Examination.................................................. 102
Cross Examination ................................................. 110

Deposition of Otto King— PI. Ex. 15 127

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 1
(Charge by plaintiff Lea with Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission— signed 2 September 
1965) ........................................  37

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4
(Decision of Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission— dated 24 June 1966) ............................  39

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 17
(Deposition of John W. Bagwill— dated
11 May 1967) ................................................................. 131

Defendant’s Exhibit 1
(Personnel Policy Manual— dated 1 April 1963) 42

n



9-15-66 

11- 7-66 

1-31-67 

3- 1-67 

3- 1-67

6-28-67

6-28-67

11- 2-67

3-15-68

5-23-68

9-17-68

11- 3-68 

11- 20-68

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

Lea, et al.
v.

Cone Mills Corporation 

Filed Complaint and cost bond 

Filed defendant’s Answer 

Filed Order on Initial Pre-Trial Conference 

Filed defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Filed defendant’s Motion to determine if class 
action
Filed plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant’s Motion 
to Dismiss and Motion re class action

Filed Order signed by Judge Eugene A. Gordon 
on class action

Filed Order signed by Judge Gordon denying 
defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Final pre-trial conference before Judge Gordon 
and filed Stipulation of the parties

Filed Memorandum Order signed by Judge 
Gordon as to triable issues

Case called for trial on merits before Judge 
Edwin M. Stanley. The case was tried before 
the Court without a jury, and both parties 
presented oral testimony and documentary evi­
dence into the record

Filed plaintiffs’ proposed Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law and supporting Brief

Filed defendant’s comments on, alteration of 
and additions to plaintiffs’ proposed Findings 
of Fact and Conclusions of Law

iii



1- 9-69 

7-29-69

9- 8-69

9-26-69

9-30-69

9-30-69 

10- 8-69

Oral argument by parties before Judge Stanley

Filed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 
and Discussion by Judge Stanley

Filed Order by Judge Stanley ordering:
1. Enjoining defendant from discriminating 

against Negro female applicants for employ­
ment at Eno plant because of race in violation 
of Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2. Defendant to adopt and implement ob­
jective and reviewable standards and procedures 
with respect to the hiring and assignment of 
females at its Eno plant, and providing steps 
for the implementation of the terms of the 
Order

3. Denial of back pay for the plaintiffs 
and their attorneys’ fees, in the exercise of the 
Court’s discretion

4. Plaintiffs are allowed their costs

Filed plaintiffs’ Notice of Appeal to the United 
States Court of Appeals

Filed defendant’s Notice of Cross-Appeal to 
the United States Court of Appeals

Filed defendant’s Motion for Stay of Order

Filed Order signed by Judge Stanley granting 
stay of Order, upon consent of plaintiffs

xv



IN THE

United States District Court 
for the Middle District

OF N O RTH  CAROLINA 

DURH AM  DIVISION

SHIRLEY LEA, RO M O N A PINNIX, ) 
and ANNIE TINNIN, )

)
Plaintiffs, )

) No. C-176-D-66 
v. )

)
CONE M ILLS CORPORATION , )

)
Defendant. )

O R D E R

[Filed 8 September 1969]

This cause came regularly on for trial before the Court 
without a jury, and was duly submitted for consideration 
and decision, and the Court, after due deliberation, having 
on the 29th day of July, 1969, filed herein its Findings of 
Fact and Conclusions of Law;

Now, therefore, pursuant to said Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law filed herein, it is ORDERED, A D ­
JUDGED and DECREED as follows:

1. The defendant, Cone Mills Corporation, its officers, 
agents, employees, servants, successors and all persons and



2

organizations in active concert or participation with them, 
are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from dis­
criminating against Negro female applicants for employ­
ment at the Cone Mills manufacturing facility located in 
Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina, known as 
the Eno Plant, because of race in violation of Title V II 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

2. The defendant shall forthwith adopt and implement 
objective and reviewable standards and procedures with 
respect to the hiring and assignment of females at its Eno 
Plant, designed to insure that all female applicants for 
employment are afforded equal consideration for any 
vacancy which may exist during the period of time when 
their application was current.

3. The defendant shall, within twenty days of the entry 
of this Order, post on the bulletin boards at its Eno Plant 
a brief written explanation of the provisions of this Order, 
and the objective and reviewable standards and procedures 
adopted with respect to the hiring of females at its Eno 
Plant, prepared in non-technical terms, understandable to 
all employees who have had limited educational oppor­
tunities.

4. The defendant shall file with the Court and serve 
copies on counsel for the plaintiffs, promptly after ninety 
days from the entry of this Order, a report reflecting the 
following information with respect to its Eno Plant:

(a) All changes in the procedures governing the 
selection of applicants for employment which differ 
from those set forth in the defendant’s Personnel Policy 
Manual which was introduced into evidence in this 
case. The report will also include all steps taken in 
compliance with the provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3 
of this Order.



a

(b) Copies of any printed matter or letters pub­
lished or distributed in effectuating compliance with 
the terms of this Order.

5. With respect to the plaintiffs, and the class they 
represent, the defendant at its Eno Plant is specifically 
ordered:

(a) To refrain from giving any applicant for em­
ployment preference over any other applicant because 
of her relation to or acquaintance with any officer, 
employee or former employee, at the Eno Plant, or at 
any other plant operated by the defendant.

(b) To notify all applicants for employment, at 
the time of their application, that they are required to 
renew their applications each thirty days in order to 
maintain same on an active basis. Such notification 
shall be given by having each application form contain 
a printed statement that such application would remain 
active for a period of thirty days, and that the appli­
cant will not be considered for employment after thirty 
days unless she renews her application in writing, and 
by calling same to the attention of each applicant.

(c) When a vacancy is to be filled by the employ­
ment of an individual not then employed at the Eno 
Plant (i.e., “new hire” or “ re-hire” ), the personnel 
manager will consider those persons whose applications 
were made within the preceding thirty days, and he 
shall offer the opportunity to fill such vacancy to the 
applicant who is available and considered qualified for 
the vacancy, and will, to the extent practicable, choose 
that qualified person in the order of the filing date of 
her application.

(d) Each application for employment shall be dated 
either by the applicant, personnel manager, or the



4

receptionist, and each shall contain a specific written 
designation of the race of the applicant.

(e) If any applicant eligible for consideration fails, 
in the judgment of the personnel manager, to meet 
the minimal requisite qualifications for any vacant 
position, a brief statement of the reason therefor shall 
be recorded on the application. Similarly, if any appli­
cant declines to accept the position offered, or cannot 
be reached by telephone, or any other reasonable means 
designated in the application, within a reasonable time, 
this information will likewise be recorded on the appli­
cation.

6. The defendant shall make a reasonable effort to con­
tact each of the named plaintiffs herein, as well as Lizzie 
M. Bradshaw, Magdalene Bradshaw and Ida Fuller, and 
advise them that any of them who desire to be considered 
for employment may file an application in writing, and that 
same will be considered in the manner provided in this 
Order and the objective and reviewable standards and pro­
cedures adopted to implement this Order. If the personnel 
manager is unable to communicate with any of said indi­
viduals by telephone or other means of communication, 
he shall endeavor to contact her by sending a letter by 
certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to her 
last-known address.

7. The defendant shall not discriminate or retaliate in 
any manner against any employee or applicant or other 
person or organization who has furnished information or 
participated in any respect in the investigation of the em­
ployment practices at the Fmo Plant in connection with this 
action.

8. Back pay for plaintiffs, and any members of the class 
they represent, and attorneys’ fees, are denied in the exer­



cise of the Court’s discretion.

9. The plaintiffs are allowed their costs as provided 
by Local Rule 27.

10. The Court retains jurisdiction of this cause.

EDW IN M. STANLEY 
United States District Judge

September 5, 1969

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

[Filed 29 July 1969]

STANLEY, CHIEF JUDGE

The plaintiffs, Shirley Lea, Romona Pinnix, and Annie 
Tinnin, all Negro females residing in Orange County, 
North Carolina, seek to restrain the defendant, Cone Mills 
Corporation, from continuing or maintaining any policy 
or practice limiting or otherwise interfering with the rights 
of plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, to enjoy equal 
employment opportunities without regard to race or color, 
as secured by Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
42 U.S.C. I 2000 et seq.

The case was tried by the Court without a jury. Follow­
ing the trial, counsel for the parties filed proposed findings 
of fact and conclusions of law, and briefs, and later ap­
peared before the Court and orally argued their respective 
contentions.

After considering the entire record, including argu­
ments of counsel, the Court now makes and files herein its 
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as follows:



6

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Plaintiffs, Shirley Lea, Romona Pinnix and Annie 
Tinnin, are Negro citizens of the United States and the 
State of North Carolina, residing in Orange County, 
North Carolina.

2. The defendant, Cone Mills Corporation (herein­
after referred to as “ Cone Mills” ), is a corporation 
incorporated and doing business pursuant to the laws 
of the State of North Carolina.

3. The defendant maintains its principal corporate 
office and place of business in Greensboro, North Caro­
lina, and also maintains and operates mills, facilities 
and offices located in various other cities and towns in 
the State of North Carolina. Among other manufactur­
ing plants, defendant operates a mill known as the Eno 
Plant, located in Hillsborough, Orange County, North 
Carolina, for the manufacture of greige (unfinished) 
goods.

4. As of July 2, 1965, 346 persons were employed 
in the Eno Plant. O f these, approximately 310 were 
white employees and 36 were Negro male employees. 
No Negro females were employed in any capacity at 
the Eno Plant.

5. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 
S 701(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 
I 2000e-(b).

6. The Cone Mills’ Personnel Policy Manual, ap­
plicable to all Cone Mills facilities, including the Eno 
Plant, which has been in effect since April 1, 1963, 
establishes company policy for the recruitment and 
selection of applicants for employment. The primary 
standards applied is the applicant’s ability to perform



7

any job currently vacant, and the manual directs that 
this standard be applied without regard to race, creed, 
color or national origin. When two or more applicants 
each meet the ability criteria for a particular vacancy, 
the manual establishes the following priorities for selec­
tion among the applicants:

(a) Laid-off employees

(b) Former employees

(c) Persons residing in or near the communi­
ties in which Cone Mills plants are 
located

7. The written hiring procedures of Cone Mills, also 
applicable to the Eno Plant, are as follows:

(a) The applicant fills out an application 
form, is interviewed by the personnel 
manager, and given aptitude and visual 
tests.

(b) The applicant’s work history is investi­
gated, and if found staisfactory, the ap­
plicant is further interviewed.

(c) Applicants found satisfactory are then 
given a physical examination.

(d) Applicants satisfying all such require­
ments, including the physical examina­
tion, are offered employment.

8. When the portion of the Personnel Policy Manual 
covered by Finding 7 was issued, the testing of appli­
cants referred to in sub-paragraph (a) was optional 
with various plant managers. All other provisions were 
mandatory. Testings began at the Eno Plant in Novem­
ber or December of 1965.



9. Prior to July 2, 1965, males, Negro and white, 
and white females were employed in various job classi­
fications at the Eno Plant. No Negro females had ever 
been employed in any capacity at the plant as of that 
date. However, prior to the spring of 1965, no Negro 
females had ever applied for employment at the plant. 
While unable to recall specific names, dates or circum­
stances, the personnel manager and receptionist at the 
Eno Plant stated that some Negro females did apply 
for jobs between January 1, 1965, and July 2, 1965.

10. In 1960 or 1961, John Bagwill, the then Vice 
President for Industrial Relations of Cone Mills, re­
quested and received a review of Cone’s hiring policies 
and procedures with regard to the number of Negroes 
employed. In 1963, more than one year before the 
enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the pre­
viously referred to directive to plant managers was 
placed in the Personnel Policy Manual. This directive 
made it mandatory that there be no discrimination on 
the basis of race in the hiring or promotion of Cone 
Mills employees. In the summer of 1965, shortly before 
the effective date of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Cone 
Mills officials met with all plant managers and reviewed 
the provisions of the Act and the established company 
policy. No specific recommendation was made, how­
ever, concerning the hiring of Negro females at the 
Eno Plant.

11. Prior to July 9, 1965, Cone Mills performed 
some work at some of its plants and mills pursuant to 
contracts with the United States under Executive Order 
No. 10925, and therefore was under an obligation to 
institute an affirmative action program to insure that 
its hiring and promotional practices were carried out 
without regard to race, creed, color or national origin



of the applicants and employees. There is no evidence, 
however, that Cone Mills has ever been found in viola­
tion of its affirmative obligation to insure non-discrimi­
nation.

12. Both before and after July 2, 1965, the practice 
at the Eno Plant was to accept applications from all 
applicants, even though no vacancy existed at the time 
the application was made. The only times no applica­
tions were taken were the last week of July of each1 
year when the plant was closed for vacations, and the 
single period of about one week in June of 1965 when 
a sign was posted on the door that no applications 
would be received.

13. No basic changes occurred in the written hiring 
policies of Cone Mills subsequent to July 2, 1965, ex­
cept to provide that, in addition to “ race, creed, color 
or national origin,” “ sex” would not be a consideration 
in the hiring and promotion of applicants and em­
ployees.

14. Because of the requirements of physical strength, 
certain jobs at the Eno plant are considered “ male” 
jobs, and other jobs, not so physically demanding, are 
considered “ female” jobs. For example, all jobs in the 
carding department, with the exception of the part- 
time job of lab technician, are considered male jobs. 
The classifications of spinner, spool tender, quiller 
operator, and battery filler, are considered female jobs. 
Jobs in the cloth room are considered male jobs.

15. This action was instituted on September 15, 
1966, and by November 1, 1966, there were five Negro 
females employed at the Eno Plant.

16. The present personnel manager at the Eno 
Plant had served in that capacity for at least ten years



10

prior to the filing of the complaint in this action. The 
personnel manager is also the office manager.

17. With regard to the hiring procedures at the 
Eno Plant, an applicant for employment is given an 
application form by the receptionist. When the form 
has been completed, the applicant is interviewed by the 
personnel manager to determine the applicant’s work 
history. The interview also covers the determination of 
facts concerning the priorities enumerated in Finding 
6, such as whether the applicant is a former Cone Mills 
employee, whether he resides in a community near a 
Cone Mills facility, and whether he has friends or 
relatives working at the plant in question. This inter­
view is conducted without regard to the existence of a 
vacancy. When there is a vacancy, an interview, under 
certain circumstances, is scheduled between the appli­
cant and the supervisor in whose department the va­
cancy exists. If the applicant is satisfactory and a 
vacancy exists, the applicant is given a physical exami­
nation. If the applicant passes the physical examination, 
he is given the job.

18. If the applicant is not offered a job at the time 
the application is made, the application is placed on 
the top of a stack of previously filed applications on 
the desk of the personnel manager. It is expected that 
applications will be renewed approximately every two 
weeks to assure the personnel manager that the appli­
cant is still interested in a job. As applications are re­
newed, they are placed on top of the stack and the 
renewal date recorded. If an applicant does not renew 
his applictaion within approximately two weeks, his 
application stays on the bottom of the stack. At some 
point between two weeks and a month, applications 
which have not been renewed are filed in an alpha-



11

betical file. If a renewal is subsequently made, the 
application is removed from the alphabetical file, the 
renewal date is noted thereon, and the application is 
again placed on top of the stack.

19. When a vacancy exists and no prospect fitting 
the qualifications happens to apply personally, the per­
sonnel manager examines the files of current applica­
tions for a suitable prospect. If there is such an appli­
cation on file, the applicant is contacted by telephone, 
postcard or through the references he has given on the 
application. After a satisfactory physical examination, 
he is offered the job. If no applicant with experience is 
available, the personnel manager will consider employ­
ing an inexperienced person.

20. Generally, a vacancy in the Eno Plant can be 
filled within one or two days.

21. In filling vacancies, the Eno Plant Manager 
accords first priority to those applicants with experi­
ence, either in the particular job to be filled or in a 
related industry. Second priority is accorded to an 
applicant who has a relative then working at the Eno 
Plant. Next in order of priority is an applicant who 
has a close friend working at the plant. Residence of 
the applicant is the last in the order of priority. None 
of the plaintiffs have relatives or close friends employed 
at the Eno Plant, and none were experienced in any 
type of manufacturing work.

22. No applicant is required to disclose his race on 
the application form. He is required, however, to list 
the schools which he attended, and, prior to 1965, the 
race of the applicant could generally be determined by 
the schools the applicant had attended because the



12

schools in Orange County were at that time predomi­
nantly Negro or predominantly white.

23. On one or more occasions prior to September 
2, 1965, some of the plaintiffs had applied for employ­
ment at the Eno Plant, and had gained the impression 
that the Eno Plant, as a matter of company policy, did 
not employ Negro females.

24. On the morning of September 2, 1965, pursuant 
to a previous agreement, the plaintiffs and several other 
Negro females met at a church and received instruc­
tions with respect to plants they were to visit and make 
applications for employment. It was part of the plan 
for the individuals to return to the church following 
the filing of the applications in order to sign complaints 
against companies which did not offer them employ­
ment.

25. On September 2, 1965, each of the plaintiffs, in 
addition to several other Negro females, applied for 
employment at the Eno Plant. Plaintiffs and the other 
Negro females were allowed to file applications. After 
completing the applications, the personnel manager 
interviewed the plaintiffs and the other applicants two 
or more at a time.

26. When the plaintiffs applied for employment at 
the Eno Plant on September 2, 1965, one of them, Mrs. 
Tinnin, was already employed, one had never worked 
before, and none had had experience working in a 
textile plant.

27. Plaintiffs Lea and Pinnix were interviewed by 
the personnel manager at the same time. Both testified 
that the personnel manager told them that the Eno 
Plant did not employ Negro females. The personnel 
manager did not remember the question being asked,



13

but testified that it was a fact that no Negro females 
had ever been employed at the plant. From the con­
flicting evidence, it is found that, for all practical pur­
poses, Negro females were not considered for employ­
ment at the Eno Plant, at least prior to July 2, 1965.

28. Plaintiffs Pinnix and Tinnin listed telephone 
numbers on their application forms. As of the date of 
the trial neither of them had been contacted by tele­
phone or otherwise concerning the possibility of em­
ployment. However, one of the Negro females who 
applied for employment along with the plaintiffs re­
newed her application subsequent to September 2, 1965, 
and was employed in August of 1966, when a vacancy 
occurred and no experienced person could be found to 
fill the position.

29. The history of employment at the Eno Plant 
shows that the company relies heavily on the employ­
ment of relatives and friends of the family as a prime 
source of filling vacancies. A number of members of the 
same family are employed at the Eno Plant at the same 
time. The Eno Plant is practically the only manufactur­
ing plant in the Hillsborough area which offers indus­
trial employment, and is the only textile mill in the area 
operated to any extent.

30. The Personnel Policy Manual does not require 
the renewal of applications every two weeks, and the 
plaintiffs were not advised that in order for their appli­
cations to remain active it would be necessary for them 
to renew their applications approximately every two 
weeks.

31. On or about November 5, 1965, approximately 
two months after plaintiffs applied for employment, a 
vacancy occurred for which at least one of the plain-



14

tiffs could have been employed. An inexperienced white 
female was employed to fill the vacancy, and no effort 
was made to contact any of the plaintiffs. The first 
Negro female employed at the Eno Plant was employed 
on March 17, 1966.

32. Between July 2, 1965, and November 1, 1966, 
approximately 167 persons were employed at the Eno 
Plant. O f these, 85 were white males, 53 were Negro 
males, 22 were white females, and 7 were Negro females.

33. On or about October 26, 1965, the Equal Em­
ployment Opportunity Commission accepted charges 
as properly filed made by each of the named plaintiffs, 
as well as charges made by Lizzie M. Bradshaw, M ag­
dalene Bradshaw, Ida Fuller, Inez Corbett, Laura Jean 
Battle, Caroline Corbett, and Annie Torraine, all Negro 
females residing in Orange County, North Carolina, 
alleging that they had been denied employment by 
Cone Mills at its Eno Plant on September 2, 1965, 
because of their race.

34. On June 24, 1966, the Equal Employment O p­
portunity Commission found reasonable cause to believe 
that the named plaintiffs, and Lizzie Bradshaw, M ag­
dalene Bradshaw, and Ida Fuller, had been denied 
consideration for employment on September 2, 1965, 
because of their race.

35. By letter dated August 19, 1966, Kenneth F. 
Holbert, Acting Director of Compliance for the Com­
mission, sent letters to each of the named plaintiffs 
advising that “ due to the heavy workload of the Com­
mission, it has been impossible to undertake or to con­
clude conciliation efforts,” and that a civil action could 
be filed in the appropriate Federal District Court.



15

36. The complaint in this action was filed on Sep­
tember 19, 1966 within 30 days after notification from 
the Commission.

D I S C U S S I O N

Section 703(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) provides:

“ (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice 
for an employer—-

“ (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge 
any individual, or otherwise to discriminate 
against any individual with respect to his com­
pensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of em­
ployment, because of such individual’s race, 
color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

“ (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his em­
ployees in any way which would deprive or tend 
to deprive any individual of employment oppor­
tunities or otherwise adversely affect his status 
as an employee, because of such individual’s race, 
color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Section 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 
U.S.C. § 2Q00e-5(g) provides:

“ (g) If the court finds that the respondent has 
intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in 
an unlawful employment practice charged in the com­
plaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engag­
ing in such unlawful employment practice, and order 
such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which 
may include reinstatement or hiring of employees, with 
or without back pay (payable by the employer, em­



16

ployment agency, or labor organization, as the case may 
be, responsible for the unlawful employment practice). 
Interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable 
diligence by the person or persons discriminated against 
shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise allow­
able. No order of the court shall require the admission 
or reinstatement of an individual as a member of a 
union or the hiring, reinstatement, or promotion of an 
individual as an employee, or the payment to him of 
any back pay, if such individual was refused admission, 
suspended, or expelled or was refused employment or 
advancement or was suspended or discharged for any 
reason other than discrimination on account of race, 
color, religion, sex or national origin or in violation of 
section 2000e-3(a) of this title.”
While the defendant’s Personnel Policy Manual, effec­

tive since April 1, 1963, directs the selection of applicants 
for employment without regard to race, statistics, which 
often tell more than words, effectively refute the claim 
that the policy was practiced with respect to Negro females. 
State of Alabama v. United States, 5 Cir., 304 F.2d 583 
(1962). The fact that no Negro females had applied for 
employment before the spring of 1965 does not, contrary 
to the argument of defendant, show either lack of interest 
or disprove discrimination. The more plausible explanation 
of this inaction is that, because of defendant’s hiring prac­
tices over a long period of years, Negro females felt their 
efforts to obtain employment would be futile. Cypress v. 
Newport News General & Nonsectarian Hosp. Ass’n., 4 Cir., 
375 F.2d 648 (1967). Moreover, defendant’s hiring pro­
cedures of granting initial hiring preference to former em­
ployees and close friends and relatives of its existing work 
force is inherently discriminatory against Negro females. 
Dobbins v. Local 212, International Bro. of Elec. Wkrs., 
292 F. Supp. 413 (S.D.Ohio, 1968). Even though seven



17

Negro females have been employed, the hiring preferences 
of defendant will continue to place Negro female applicants 
at a competetive disadvantage when seeking employment, 
thus constituting a prima facie inference of discrimination.

Another practice inherently discriminatory, particularly 
when tested by its operation and effect, was the failure of 
the defendant to notify the plaintiffs that they were re­
quired to renew their applications about every two weeks 
in order for them to be considered for employment in the 
event a vacancy arose. This renewal policy was not included 
in any written manual or other hiring policy to which the 
plaintiffs would have had access. Since plaintiffs had no 
employed relatives or friends whereby they could learn 
of the policy, they were effectively denied the right to even 
be considered for employment after about two weeks from 
the time their applications were filed.

The Court is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) to 
enjoin the discriminatory employment practices engaged 
in by defendant with respect to Negro female employees 
at its Eno Plant, and the plaintiffs, and the class they 
represent, are entitled to an order which will effectively 
eliminate such discriminatory practices. Since it is clearly 
apparent that when plaintiffs applied for employment at 
defendant’s Eno Plant on September 2, 1965, their primary 
motive was to test defendant’s employment practices rather 
than to seek actual employment, and since there has been 
no showing whatever that defendant has since employed 
any females, either Negro or white, possessing plaintiffs’ 
education, background, skill and work experience, and 
since no vacancy of any type existed on September 2, 1965, 
plaintiffs are not entitled to recover back pay from Sep­
tember 2, 1965, or counsel fees. The fact that no vacancy 
existed on September 2, 1965, does not, however, preclude 
plaintiffs from maintaining this action, since Negro females



18

were not considered for employment at that time. The 
order will apply prospectively only, but will be sufficient 
to effectively eliminate all discriminatory practices with 
respect to future female applicants for employment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and of 
the subject matter of this action.

2. This action is properly maintained as a class action 
under Rule 23(a) and (b ) (2 )  of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. The class includes all Negro females who are, 
or who might be, affected by any racially discriminatory 
policies or practices of the defendant.

3. The policies and practices of the defendant at its 
Eno Plant, and its conduct pursuant thereto, with reference 
to employment of Negro females, constitute a pattern and 
practice of discrimination within the meaning of Title V II 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

4. The defendant has intentionally engaged in, and 
continues to intentionally engage in, unlawful employment 
practices at its Eno Plant with respect to the employment 
of Negro females.

5. The plaintiffs are entitled to enjoin the discrimina­
tory employment practices herein described.

Counsel for the plaintiffs will prepare and present to 
the Court an appropriate order after same has been ap­
proved by counsel for the defendant as to form. Failing to 
agree on the form of the order, counsel for the parties will 
express themselves with reference thereto not later than 
August 20, 1969.

EDW IN M. STANLEY 
United States District Judge

July 29, 1969



19

N OTICE OF APPEAL BY PLAINTIFFS

[Filed 26 September 1969]

Notice is hereby given that Shirley Lea, Romona Pinnix 
and Annie Tinnin, plaintiffs above named, on this 25th 
day of September, 1969 hereby appeal to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from that portion 
of the Order of the United States District Court for the 
Middle District of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Car­
olina, entered on September 5, 1969, which denies bach 
pay to plaintiffs and any member of their class and further 
denies attorney fees to plaintiffs.
Dated: September 25, 1969.

CONRAD O. PEARSON 
203]/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

J. LeVONNE CHAMBERS
CHAMBERS, STEIN, FERGUSON & LANNING 

216 West Tenth Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

W. G. PEARSON
336/2 East Pettigrew Street 
Durham, North Carolina

JACK GREENBERG
ROBERT BELTON 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York



20

N OTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL BY DEFENDANT

[Filed 29 September 1969]

Notice is hereby given that Cone Mills Corporation, 
defendant above named, hereby cross-appeals to the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from all 
parts, except Paragraph 8, of the final Order entered in 
this action on the 8th day of September, 1969.

This the 29th day of September, 1969.

Thornton H. Brooks 
440 West Market Street 
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402 
Attorney for Defendant Cone Mills 
Corporation

COM PLAIN T

[Filed 15 September 1966]

I

This is a proceeding for injunctive relief, restraining 
the defendant from maintaining a policy, practice, custom 
and usage of withholding, denying or attempting to with­
hold or deny and depriving or attempting to deprive or 
otherwise interfering with the rights of the plaintiffs and 
others similarly situated to equal employment because of 
race or color.

II

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 
U. S. C.  ̂1343. This is a suit in equity authorized and



21

instituted pursuant to Title V II of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964, 42 U. S. C. jj|2000e et seq. Jurisdiction of the 
Court is invoked to secure protection of and to redress 
deprivation of rights secured by Title V II of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§2000e et seq., providing 
for injunctive and other relief against racial discrimination 
in employment.

III

Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on 
behalf of others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) 
and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. There 
are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights 
of others seeking employment opportunities without dis­
crimination on the basis of race and color, who are so 
numerous as to make it impracticable to bring them all 
individually before the Court; the claims and defenses of 
the plaintiffs are typical of the claims and defenses of the 
class. The defendant has adopted rules and policies, and 
has refused to eliminate same, which have deprived, and 
will continue to deprive, the plaintiffs and others of the 
class of their rights to equal employment opportunities 
without regard to race and color as secured to them by 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. 
j!2000e.

IV

Plaintiffs, Shirley Lea, Romona Pinnix, and Annie 
Tinnin, are Negro citizens of the United States and the 
State of North Carolina, residing in Orange County, North 
Carolina.

V

The defendant, Cone Mills Corporation, is a corpora-



22

tion, incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of 
North Carolina with power to sue and to be sued in its 
corporate name and is doing business in the State of North 
Carolina, including Orange County. Defendant owns and 
operates textile mills and other plant facilities, one being 
known as the Eno Plant, located at Hillsboro, North 
Carolina.

VI

Defendant is an employer engaged in an industry which 
affects commerce and employs more than one hundred 
(100) employees.

V II

The defendant has pursued a policy and practice of 
discriminating against plaintiffs and members of their class 
in employment opportunities solely because of their race, 
to wit:

A. On or about September 2, 1965, plaintiffs applied 
for positions as industrial trainees at defendant’s Eno Plant 
in Hillsboro, North Carolina. Plaintiffs were permitted to 
fill out applications but were told that no positions were 
available. Shortly thereafter, the defendant hired 13 indus­
trial trainees and denied such employment to plaintiffs 
solely because of their race and color.

B. The defendant hires no Negro female employees 
although it does hire white female employees.

C. The defendant denies Negro employees and pros­
pective employees the same opportunities for advancement 
and wage earnings it accords to white employees.



23

Plaintiffs were refused employment on the basis of race 
and color pursuant to defendant’s long-standing practice, 
policy, custom and usage of denying and limiting employ­
ment and employment opportunities of Negroes at its plant 
facilities. Defendant’s denial of employment opportunities 
to the plaintiffs was intended to deny and had the effect 
of denying the plaintiffs equal employment opportunities 
and to otherwise adversely affect their status as employees 
solely because of their race and color.

IX

There is no State or local law or ordinance prohibiting 
the unlawful practices complained of herein. On October 
26, 1965, the plaintiffs filed complaints with the Equal 
Employment Opportunities Commission alleging denial by 
defendant of their rights under Title V II of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. §§2000e et seq. On August 19, 
1966, the Commission found reasonable cause to believe 
that violations of the Act had occurred by the defendant 
and advised the plaintiffs that the defendant’s compliance 
with Title V II had not been accomplished within the maxi­
mum period allowed to the Commission and that the plain­
tiffs were entitled to maintain civil action for relief in the 
United States District Court.

X

Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy 
at law to redress the wrongs alleged, and this suit for 
injunctive relief is their only means of securing adequate 
relief. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are now suffer­
ing and will continue to suffer irreparable injuries from

V III



24

defendant’s policy, practice, custom and usage as set forth 
herein until and unless enjoined by the Court.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that the 
Court advance this cause on the docket, order a speedy 
hearing at the earliest practicable date, and upon such 
hearing to:

1. Grant plaintiffs and the class they represent an 
injunction, enjoining the defendant, Cone Mills Corpora­
tion, its agents, successors, employees, attorneys, and those 
acting in concert with them and at their direction from 
continuing or maintaining any policy, practice, custom and 
usage of denying, abridging, withholding, conditioning, 
limiting or otherwise interfering with the rights of plain­
tiffs and others of their class to equal employment oppor­
tunities, including equal pay, terms, conditions and priv­
ileges of employment without regard to race or color.

2. Grant the plaintiffs injunctive relief, enjoining the 
defendant, its agents, successors, employees, attorneys, and 
those acting in concert and participation with them and at 
their direction from continuing or maintaining any policy, 
practice, custom and usage of denying, abridging, with­
holding, conditioning, limiting or otherwise interfering with 
the rights of plaintiffs and others similarly situated to 
enjoy equal employment opportunities as secured by Title 
V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. ^2000e 
et seq.

3. Grant plaintiffs back pay from the time of defen­
dant’s wrongful denial of equal employment opportunities 
to the plaintiffs.

4. Allow plaintiffs their costs herein, including reason­



25

able attorneys’ fees and such other additional relief as may 
appear to the Court to be equitable and just.

CONRAD O. PEARSON
203/2 East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina

J. LeVONNE CHAMBERS
405/2 East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina

W. G. PEARSON
336 /2 East Pettigrew Street 
Durham, North Carolina

JACK GREENBERG 
LEROY D. CLARK 

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

A N S W E R

[Filed 7 November 1966]

Defendant, Cone Mils Corporation, by its counsel, for 
its answer to the complaint herein:

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim against defendant 
upon which relief can be granted.



26

SECOND DEFENSE

The right of action set forth in the Complaint was not 
brought within the time requirements of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964. The Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject 
matter of the action alleged in the Complaint.

TH IRD  DEFENSE

The plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administra­
tive remedies provided under the Civil Rights Act of 1964- 
prior to the institution of this action, and this action should 
be abated or stayed pending the determination by the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission of its attempts in 
that area.

FOURTH DEFENSE

The prerequisites of a class action have not been satis­
fied by the plaintiffs and the Court should determine by 
order that it may not be so maintained.

FIFTH DEFENSE

The plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain this suit in 
equity for the action was not brought with a good-faith 
desire to remedy alleged discriminatory employment prac­
tices, but constitutes an attempt on the part of persons, 
organizations or associations whose identity are presently 
unknown to the defendant, to solicit, excite and stir up a 
large number of claims of the same or similar nature against 
this defendant and against other employers within the 
jurisdiction of this Court. This action was instituted with­
out the plaintiffs’ knowledge and is being managed and 
controlled by persons or organizations other than the plain­



27

tiffs, and constitutes an abuse of judicial proceedings. It 
will not effectuate the purposes and policies of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 to permit the plaintiffs to maintain 
this action.

SIXTH  DEFENSE

(Numbered paragraphs of this Answer in this Defense 
refer to correspondingly numbered paragraphs of the Com­
plaint.)

I.

Paragraph I of the Complaint containing no allegation 
of fact requires no response.

II.

Paragraph II of the Complaint containing no allegation 
of fact requires no response.

III.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph III.

IV.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph IV  of 
the Complaint.

V.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph V  of 
the Complaint.

VI.

Defendant admits the allegations of Paragraph V I of 
the Complaint.



28

V II.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph V II of 
the Complaint except that it admits that on 2 September 
1965 the plaintiffs applied for positions as learners at its 
Eno plant, were permitted to fill out applications and were 
denied positions.

VIII.

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph V III 
of the Complaint.

IX.

Paragraph IX  of the Complaint contains conclusions 
of law which require no response, but it is admitted that 
on October 26, 1965, the plaintiffs filed unsworn statements 
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

X .

Defendant denies the allegations of Paragraph X  of 
the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, defendant, Cone Mills Corporation, 
having fully answered the Complaint, prays that the Com­
plaint herein be dismissed with prejudice and for all other 
proper relief, including costs and attorneys’ fees.

Thornton H. Brooks 
Charles B. Robson, Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant, Cone 
Mills Corporation

Dated: 7 November 1966



29

O R D E R

[Filed 28 June 1967]

This cause coming on to be heard before the under­
signed upon motion of defendant to dismiss and for a 
determination whether this cause may be prosecuted as 
a class action and upon motion of plaintiffs to strike de­
fendant’s demand for trial by jury and to inspect the record 
of part of defendant’s answers to plaintiffs’ interrogatories 
22, 24, 26 and 51, which were ordered filed under seal 
with the Clerk of Court, and it appearing to the Court 
upon the pleadings, exhibits, briefs and arguments of 
counsel for both parties that the defendant’s motion to 
dismiss and motion for determination by the Court that 
this is not a proper class action should be denied. It further 
appears to the Court that plaintiffs’ motion to inspect the 
record of answers to interrogatories ordered to be filed 
under seal should be denied and that the Court should 
defer ruling upon plaintiffs’ motion to strike demand for 
jury trial until final pre-trial conference;

IT  IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 
DECREED:

1. That defendant’s motion to dismiss be and the same 
is hereby denied.

2. That this is a proper class action and may be prose­
cuted as such pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b )(2 ) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court finding that 
this is a proper class action under Rule (b )(2 ) , no notice 
to members of the class need be given at this time.

Pursuant to Rule 23(c) the Court finds that the class 
here involved are all Negroes who are or who might be 
affected by any racially discriminatory policies or prac­
tices of defendant, should the Court find any such prac­



30

tices, at defendant’s Eno Plant in Hillsborough, North 
Carolina.

This ruling is conditional and may be amended, modi­
fied or altered at any time prior to final determination of 
this cause on the merits.

3. That plaintiffs’ motion to inspect the answers of 
defendant to plaintiffs’ interrogatories 22, 24, 26 and 51 
which were ordered filed under seal with the Clerk of 
Court be and the same is hereby denied.

4. That ruling by the Court on plaintiffs’ motion to 
strike defendant’s demand for jury trial be deferred pend­
ing the final pre-trial conference of this case.

This 27 day of June, 1967.

EUGENE A. GORDON

JUDGE, UNITED STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT 
Approved as to form:

TH O RN TO N  H. BROOKS 
Counsel for Defendant

J. LeVONNE CHAMBERS 
Counsel for Plaintiffs

S T I P U L A T I O N

[Filed 15 March 1968]

Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules of 
this Court, the attorneys for the parties met and conferred 
on March 13, 1968, for the purposes required by said rule.



31

A pre-trial conference with the Court was held on March
15,

As a result of such conference, the parties herewith 
stipulate as to their respective contentions of position to 
be taken at the trial upon the merits (Part I ) ;  triable 
issues (Part I I ) ;  a designation and agreement concerning 
exhibits (Part I I I ) ; and an exchange of list of witnesses 
(Part IV ), as follows:

PART I

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

A. At the trial of the action, the plaintiffs will contend 
that:

1. Plaintiffs contend that defendant has pursued 
and is presently pursuing a policy and practice of 
discriminating against and limiting the employment 
and promotional opportunities of plaintiffs and the 
class they represent solely because of race in violation 
of Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. Plaintiffs further contend that because of said 
practices:

(a ) plaintiffs were denied employment by 
defendant in September 1965 because of their 
race and color;

(b) Negro employees are limited to the 
lowest paying jobs;

(c) the use of, and administration of em­
ployment tests are not professionally developed 
as required under the Act, and that the tests



32

are intended to and have the effect of dis­
criminating against Negro employees.

3. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against such 
practices and an award of costs and counsel fees.

B. At the trial of the action, the defendant will contend 
that:

1. The defendant did not refuse to hire the plain­
tiffs because of their race or color on 2 September 
1965 in violation of Title V II of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964-, as charged in writing by the plaintiffs with 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on 
26 October 1965. The plaintiffs were denied employ­
ment because there were no openings at that time 
for persons with the qualifications, skills and abilities 
possessed by the plaintiffs and as they had not pre­
viously worked for the defendant nor had relatives 
working there at the time.

2. The defendant has not intentionally engaged 
in an unlawful employment practice as charged by 
the plaintiffs; and the plaintiffs are not entitled to 
equitable relief for the reason that this civil action 
was not brought with a good-faith desire to remedy 
alleged unlawful employment practices on the part 
of the defendant, but constituted an attempt on the 
part of organizations or associations to solicit, excite 
and stir up a large number of claims of the same or 
similar nature against this defendant and against 
other employers within the jurisdiction of this Court. 
The action was instituted without the plaintiffs’ 
knowledge and is being managed and controlled by 
persons or organizations other than the plaintiffs, 
and constitutes an abuse of judicial proceedings.



33

PART II

TRIABLE ISSUES

A. The triable issues as contended by the plaintiffs are

1. Whether the plaintiffs were denied employ­
ment and employment opportunities because of their 
race and color in violation of Title V II of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964.

2. Whether in light of defendant’s former prac­
tice of refusing to accept applictaions from Negro 
women and the refusal to do more than limited hiring 
of Negro women unlawfully discriminates against 
Negro employees in violation of Title V II of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. Whether in limiting the opportunity of Ne­
groes to transfer or be promoted to other job classi­
fications the defendant discriminates against Negro 
employees in violation of Title V II of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964.

4. Whether the defendant’s policy of preferen­
tial hiring of friends and relatives of current em­
ployees, upon such employees referral and recom­
mendation, is discriminatory per se against Negroes 
in view of the racial imbalance and mal-distribution 
through the pay grades in the defendant’s plant and 
therefore in violation of Title V II of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964.

5. Whether the tests administered by the Cone 
Mills Corporation, which were instituted shortly after 
the filing of the complaints by the plaintiffs, have 
been scientifically validated on established norms by 
trained professionals in the area of testing after being



34

fully apprised as to the requirements of the positions 
in question at the Cone Mills Corporation and are 
administered by persons trained in the art or science 
of testing.

6. Whether there is a high positive correlation 
between scores obtained on the test and actual per­
formance on the job.

7. Whether the requirement that Negro employ­
ees and potential employees are required to make 
an acceptable score on the Oral Directions Test, 
Mechanical Aptitude Test and the Manual Dex­
terity Test unlawfully discriminates against Negro 
employees and potential employees in violation of 
Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in light of 
the fact that defendant has hired and promoted 
white employees who have not taken the test since 
the enactment and effective date of Title VII.

B. The triable issues as contended by the defendant are 
the same as set forth in its statement of contentions, pages 
2-3, supra.

M EM O RAN D U M  ORDER

[Filed 23 May 1968]

A final pre-trial conference was held before the Court 
on March 15, 1968, at which time the parties submitted a 
signed stipulation to the Court for the entry of a final pre­
trial order. It appears from Part II of the stipulation that 
the parties were unable to agree upon the triable issues 
and that same are in dispute.

In the subject case the plaintiffs’ rights arise solely by 
reason of Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42



U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.). Those cases involving discrimina­
tion in public schools, hospital, and similar public facilities 
are not applicable, as there is no allegation or issue arising 
concerning the violation of constitutional rights as was in­
volved in the public school cases, among others.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 with some detail sets out 
specific steps that a complainant must take before action 
is permitted in the District Court. An aggrieved person 
must first file with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission a written statement under oath setting forth 
the facts contended to constitute a violation of the Act. 
A copy of the charge must be furnished the employer or 
agency against whom the complainant seeks relief. Title 
V II, { 706(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. $ 2000e-5). In the 
subject case, the plaintiffs in their respective written state­
ments filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com­
mission state:

“ I applied for work with the above named employer 
on September 2, 1965, and was refused work on September 
2, 1965. I applied for a position as ajn] industrial trainee.
My qualifications for the position are: . . .  I  think that I 
was refused work because of my race or color. I went to the 
above named mill on the above date and applied for a 
job as an industrial trainee. I filled out an application, and 
was informed that there were no openings. We were also 
informed that all workers had been working for 20 years. 
There are no Negroes hired in this mill.”  (emphasis added)

It is provided by the Act that the Commission will 
investigate the charge and if there is reasonable cause to 
believe that the charge is true the Commission will “ en­
deavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment 
practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation 
and persuasion.” The Commission in the subject case found 
the following:

“ 1. The Commission finds reasonable cause to be-



36

lieve the charges by applicants for industrial 
trainee positions that they were denied con­
sideration for employment because of their 
race.”

In summarizing the charge in each complaint, the Com­
mission states that the “ [clharging parties allege that they 
were denied employment because of their race (Negro).” 
Thus, it is clear that there has never been a charge before 
the Commission by the plaintiffs, or either of them, con­
tending that the defendant has violated the Act in connec­
tion with promotions, transfers, testing procedures or other­
wise except in its denial of employment by reason of race.

If plaintiffs know or have been advised of violations 
not heretofore the subject of a charge before the Commis­
sion, the Commission should be afforded an opportunity to 
investigate the charges, hear the defendant’s viewpoint, and 
if violations are believed to exist, attempt to eliminate the 
offensive practices before the extreme remedy of court 
action ensues. This procedure is clearly contemplated by 
the Act.

After giving consideration to the pleadings, the briefs 
of counsel, argument of counsel, and the entire official file, 
the Court is of the opinion that the triable issues are only 
those which reasonably relate to the charges filed by the 
plaintiffs with the Commission.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:

1. The stipulation of the parties filed with the Court 
on March 15, 1968, constitutes the final pre-trial 
order in this action and will control the subsequent 
course of this action unless modified by consent of 
the parties and the Court, or by order of the Court, 
to prevent manifest injustice.



37

2. The contested issues to be tried by the Court are 
substantially the narrower issues as set forth by the 
defendant on page 4 of the stipulation, rather than 
the broader issues as set forth by the plaintiffs on 
pages 3 and 4. In general, the triable issues are only 
those which reasonably relate to the charges filed 
by the plaintiffs with the Equal Employment Oppor­
tunity Commission, and which it has investigated 
and notified the aggrieved parties and the defendant 
of its determination.

3. This order does not purport to rule on the admis­
sibility of any evidence at the trial, as such ruling 
will be made as the occasion requires.

EUGENE A. GORDON 
United States District Judge

May 22, 1968

PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 1 

PL. EX. 1

TO : Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

CO M PLAIN T OF UNFAIR EM PLOYM ENT 
PRACTICES UNDER THE 1964 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

TITLE V II

DATE: Sept. 2, 1965 Age: 24

M y name is Mrs. Shirley Lea. I am a Negro citizen of the 
United States and a resident of North Carolina. M y address 
is Rt. 1, Box 136A, Cedar Grove, N. C. M y complaint is



38

against Cone Mills Inc., whose address is Hillsboro, N. C. 
I applied for work with the above named employer on 
Sept. 2, 1965, and was refused work on Sept. 2, 1965. I 
applied for a position as a industrial trainee. M y quali­
fications for the position are (State education, training 
and/or experience.) High school graduate.

I think that I was refused work because of my race or 
color. (State briefly the circumstances and/or reasons upon 
which the complaint is based. Such things as known, stated 
or written racial employment policies, either total or par­
tial, can be included.)

I went to the above named mill on the above date and 
applied for a job as an industrial trainee. I filled out an 
application, and was informed that there were no openings. 
We were also informed that all workers had been working 
for 20 years. There are no Negroes hired in this mill.

MRS. SHIRLEY LEA 
Signature

I, P. R. WEAVER, a Notary Public in and for the County 
of Orange, in the State of North Carolina, do certify that 
SHIRLEY LEA personally appeared before me in my 
County aforesaid and subscribed and acknowledged the 
same this 2nd day of September, 1965.

P. R. WEAVER 
Notary Public

SEAL

M y Commission Expires the 4th day of April, 1967.



39

PLAINTIFF EXHIBIT 4 

PL. EX. 4

EQUAL EM PLOYM ENT O PPORTU N ITY 
COM M ISSION 

W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20506

DECISION

Magdalene Bradshaw 
Ida Fuller 
Romona Pinnix 
Shirley Lea 
Annie Tinney 
Lizza Bradshaw

Case No. 5-10-2251 
5-10-2252 
5-10-2253 
5-10-2254 
5-10-2255 
5-10-2256

Charging Parties (Applicants for “ industrial trainee” 
jobs)

Inise Corbett 
Laura Jean Battle 
Caroline Corbett 
Annie Torain

5-10-2257
5-10-2258
5-10-2259
5-10-2260

Charging Parties (Applicants for “ secretarial” jobs) 
vs.

Cone Mills Corporation 
Eno Plant
Hillsboro, North Carolina

Date of alleged violations: September 2, 1965 
Filing Date: October 26, 1965
Date of service of charges: November 24 and 26, 1965 
(by mail)

SUM M ARY OF CHARGES

Charging parties allege that they were denied employment



40

because of their race (Negro) in that:

1. Applicants for industrial trainee (5-10-2251 thru 
5-10-2256)
a. were permitted to fill out applications but were 

told there were no openings;
b. were told all employees had worked at respon­

dent plant for 20 years.

2. Applicants for secretarial positions (5-10-2257 thru 
5-10-2260)
a. were refused applications and were told there 

were no openings;

Case Nos. 5-10-2251 thru 5-10-2256
(Applicants for “ industrial trainee”  jobs)

Case Nos. 5-10-2257 thru 5-10-2260 
(Applicants for “ secretarial” jobs)

SU M M ARY OF CHARGES (continued)

b. were referred to the Greensboro plant;
c. were told that respondent had only two secre­

taries, who had worked there for 12 and 19 years.

3. All industrial trainee applicants allege there are no 
Negroes working in respondent mill.

4. All secretarial applicants allege there are no Negro 
secretaries in respondent company.

SU M M ARY OF IN VESTIGATION

The respondent mill is within the jurisdiction of Title V II 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The mailed interrogatory and subsequent investigation 
indicated:

1. That charging parties who applied for jobs as in­



41

dustrial trainees were discriminated against because 
of their race:
a. Subsequent to charging parties applications, re­

spondent hired 13 industrial trainees—-four white 
males, eight Negro males and one white female.

b. None of the charging parties were hired. Re­
spondent has never hired a Negro female. Re­
spondent has hired white females.

2. That charging parties’ allegation that no Negroes 
are hired in the mill is without substance. There 
are 44 Negro males in respondent’s employ, thirty- 
one of whom are unskilled laborers. There are, how­
ever, no Negro females.

3. That charging parties who applied for secretarial 
positions were not denied employment because of 
their race.
a. There are only two secretarial positions at re­

spondent plant;

Case Nos. 5-10-2251 thru 5-10-2256
(Applicants for “ industrial trainee” jobs)

Case Nos. 5-10-2257 thru 5-10-2260 
(Applicants for “ secretarial” jobs)

SUM M ARY OF INVESTIGATION (continued)

b. There were no openings at the time of applica­
tion, nor subsequent to that time;

c. The two incumbents of these secretarial positions 
(both white) have held these jobs for 12 and 19 
years respectively;

d. There are no Negro secretaries, nor have there 
ever been, in respondent’s employ.



42

FINDING

1. The Commission finds reasonable cause to believe 
the charges by applicants for industrial trainee posi­
tions that they were denied consideration for employ­
ment because of their race.

2. The Commission finds no reasonable cause to believe 
the charges by applicants for secretarial positions 
that they were denied employment because of their 
race.

For the Commission
John H. Royer, Jr., Secretary

Date: June 24, 1966

DEFENDANT EXHIBIT 1
PERSONNEL POLICY M ANUAL 
CONE M ILLS CO RPORATIO N  

H OU RLY EMPLOYEES

SLTBJECT: Employment

PAGE 1 of 2 
DATE April 1, 1963 
REVISED

Policy: The company recognizes a continuing need to ob­
tain and retain highly competent personnel. It is there­
fore the company’s policy to recruit and select applicants 
for employment on the basis of their ability to perform 
satisfactorily the jobs currently available, and their 
capacity to be up-graded in accordance with the com­
pany’s policies, without regard to race, creed, color, or 
national origin.

To assure the recruitment and selection of competent



43

people, the company has established and will maintain 
employment standards consistent with its needs. The 
employment standards are based on tests and techniques 
widely accepted for insuring the objective and impartial 
consideration of employee applicants.

Procedure:

1. job  Applicants

When the need arises to fill vacancies or newly created 
positions with persons not currently at work in the 
organization, first consideration will be given to quali- 
field applicants in the following groups:

(1) Laid-off employees.

(2) Former employees.

(3) People residing in or near the communities in which 
our operations are located.

In the event a qualified candidate cannot be found in 
these groups, other candidates are considered.

Persons seeking employment are to make application 
at the personnel or employment office.

2. Hiring Procedure

Details of the hiring procedure are set forth in the 
“ Manual of Employment Practices” used by the per­
sonnel manager or employment manager as a guide. 
Briefly, the steps followed in the hiring procedure are:

(1) The applicant fills out the application form, is 
interviewed by the employment or personnel man­
ager and is given aptitude tests and visual tests.



44

PERSONNEL POLICY M ANUAL 
CONE M ILLS CO RPORATIO N  

H OU RLY EMPLOYEES

SUBJECT: Employment

PAGE 2 of 2 
DATE April 1, 1963 
REVISED

(2) The applicant’s work history is investigated, and 
if found satisfactory, the applicant is interviewed 
by appropriate members of management.

(3) Applicants approved by management next take a 
physical examination.

(4) Candidates found acceptable on all counts are 
offered employment.

3. Employment of Relatives

A person may not be employed for work in a depart­
ment in which his close relative is a supervisor or de­
partment head. “ Close relative”  means mother, father, 
brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, niece, 
nephew, aunt, uncle, or first cousin, either in-law or 
by blood.

4. Employment of the Handicapped

Physically handicapped persons may be employed when 
the handicap does not interfere with other employees, or 
with the requirements of the job, or with the welfare 
of the handicapped person.

5. Legal Requirements

All requirements of state and federal law are met, and



45

these requirements are posted on all bulletin boards 
where such posting is required.

6. Induction of New Employees

Following employment, employees are inducted in ac­
cordance with a procedure described in the company 
policy entitled, “ Induction of New Employees.”

7. Probationary Period

The first six weeks of employment are probationary 
and during this period employees may be terminated 
for any reason.



46

(1)

UNITED STATES D ISTRICT CO U RT 
MIDDLE D ISTRICT OF N O RTH  CAROLINA 

DURH AM  DIVISION

)
SHIRLEY LEA, RO M O N A PINNIX, ) 

and ANNIE TINNIN, )

Plaintiffs, )
) Civil Action

v- )
) No. C-176-D-66

CONE M ILLS CORPORATION , )
a corporation, )

Defendant.

Greensboro, North Carolina 
September 17, 1968 
9:30 o ’clock A. M.

APPEARANCES:

J. LeVONNE CHAMBERS, ESQ., 
and

ROBERT BELTON, ESQ., 
appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

M cLe n d o n , b r i m , b r o o k s , p i e r c e  &
DANIELS, by
TH O RN TO N  H. BROOKS, ESQ., and 
C. ALLEN FOSTER, E SQ , of counsel, 
appearing on behalf of the Defendant.

* *



47

The above-entitled cause came on for trial in the United 
States Courtroom, United States Courthouse Building, 
Greensboro, North Carolina, before the Honorable EDWIN 
M. STANLEY, Judge Presiding, on the 17th day of 
September, 1968, commencing at 9:30 o’clock A. M.

* «  t-

(23) SHIRLEY ANN LEA

one of the Plaintiffs herein, was called as a witness in her 
own behalf and, being first duly sworn, was examined and 
testified on her oath as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Would you state your name, 
please?
A Mrs. Shirley Ann Lea.

Q  Mrs. Lea, you are one of the plaintiffs in this proceed­
ing?
A Yes.

Q  Calling your attention to the date September 2, 1965, 
were you employed anywhere at that time?
A No.

Q  Were you seeking employment at that time?
A Yes.

Q  Would you give the Court your address?
A My permanent—

Q  Yes.
A Route 1, Box 220-C, Efland, N. C.

THE C O U R T : Is that where you lived then? 

THE WITNESS: No.



48

O (By Mr. Chambers) What was your address at the time 
in September of ’65?
A Cedar Grove Route.

(24) Q  Is that in Orange County or Alamance?

A Orange.

Q How far is that from the Eno Plant?
A I ’m not sure, but I think it’s about between 12 and 14 
miles.

Q  Were you seeking employment on September 2, 1965? 
A Yes.

Q  Did you go to the defendant’s plant, the Eno Plant, to 
seek employment?
A  Yes.

Q  Had you been to that plant before?
A Yes.

Q  Would you give the first time that you went to the 
plant to apply for employment?
A I can’t remember the exact date or month. I don’t 
remember.

THE COU RT: Where is this Eno Plant?

THE WITNESS: Hillsborough.

THE COU RT: At Hillsborough?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COU RT: Is that the date you went there, 
September 2nd?

THE WITNESS: Something like that.

THE COU RT: All right.

O (By Mr. Chambers) Do you recall whether it was in 
1965 (25) that you went there the first time?



49

A  I ’m not sure, but I think it was. I can’t be positive.

Q  Did you go there alone the first time?
A No, I don’ t think so.

Q  Who did you go with the first time?
A I believe Mrs. Romona Pinnix. I don’t know. There 
might have been someone else with us. There were some 
ladies together. I don’t know.

O What were you told at that time when you went there 
to apply for employment?
A That there weren't any openings.

O Did you talk to Mr. King?
A No.

O Did you get a chance to fill out an application form? 
A I don’t remember if I filled out one then.

Q  And you went to the plant a second time to apply for 
employment? Was September 1965 the second time that 
you had been there to apply for employment?
A Yes.

Q  Did you fill in an application form at that time?
A Yes.

Q  I believe you were with Mrs. Pinnix at that time?
A Yes. There were a group of ladies together.

Q  Did you obtain employment at that time?
A No.

(26) Q  Were you told why you didn’t get employment 
at that time?

A Yes.

O What were you told?
A That they didn’t hire colored ladies.



50

Q Who told you that?
A Mr. King.

Q  To your knowledge, were any Negro women employed 
there at that time?
A No.

O Did he ask you anything about whether you had rela­
tives there in the plant?
A No.

O He just told you that they didn’t hire colored women? 
A  Yes.

THE COU RT: Who is M r King? Was he the per­
son in charge of employment and personnel?

THE WITNESS: I guess he was. That’s the one 
we were sent to, Mr. King.

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Were you given employment, Mrs. 
Lea, by Cone Mills?
A No.

Q  Did they at any time contact you about employment?' 
A No.

O You haven’t heard anything else from them since the
(27) time you went there?

A No.

Q  Are you working now?
A Yes. /

Q  Where are you working now?
A Plaid Mill Plant, Burlington Industries, Incorporated.

Q  Where is that located?
A Burlington, N. C.

THE COU RT: Where are you working now?



51

THE WITNESS: Burlington Industries Plaid Mill, 
Number One Division.

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) What do you do in the Burlington 
plant?
A Wind yam.

Q When did you begin work there in the Burlington plant? 
A It was in October of this same year.

O O f 1965?
A Yes.

Q  What did you make to begin with at the Burlington 
plant?
A I think it was a dollar and —  between a dollar and 
thirty and thirty-five. I don’t know exactly.

Q  Did you work 40 hours per week, or how many hours 
per week did you work?
A I believe it was 40 hours.

(28) Q  Are you still working for Burlington Industries? 

A Yes.

Q  What do you make there now?
A A dollar and—  I think it’s a dollar eighty, dollar eighty 
or eighty-five.

O Per hour?
A Yes.

O How many hours do you work per week?
A From 40 to 48. From 40 to 48.

Q Are you paid time and a half for hours over 40 hours 
a week?
A Yes.

THE COU RT: You work from when?
THE WITNESS: Forty to 48 hours per week.



52

Q (By Mr. Chambers) Are you married, Mrs. Lea?
A Yes.

Q  Do you have any children?
A Yes.

Q  How many children do you have?
A Three.

Q  Are they school age?
A Just one.

O And the other two are not?
A Yes.

M R. CHAMBERS: Your witness.

(29) CROSS EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Mrs. Lea, had you ever worked in a 
textile plant at any time before September 1965?
A No.

Q  When is it that you say that you first applied for a 
job at the Eno Plant?
A I don’t remember exactly now. I think it was during 
that year or something. I’m not sure.

Q  Mrs. Lea, I show you your answers to written inter­
rogatories, Interrogatory Number 6 which was verified by 
you on March 18, 1967. The interrogatory asks, “ Have you 
applied for employment at Cone Mills Eno Plant in Hills­
borough on any occasion prior or subsequent to 2 Septem­
ber 1965? If the answer to this question is yes, give the 
dates of such applications and state the substance of any 
inquiries or applications made.”

Answer: “ Yes. I sought to apply for employment at the 
Cone Mills Eno Plant in Hillsborough in July 1966 and' 
was not allowed to complete application.”



53

Is that a correct statement?

A I don’t know.

Q  Well, is that your verification to this interrogatory that 
I just read?
A That’s not my signature. I don’t sign my name like that.

(30) M R. BROOKS: May I have the interrogatories?

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Mrs. Lea, I show you the Court file 
of verification which purports to be yours, dated 18 March 
1967, and ask is that your signature?
A That don’t look like—  I don’t know. It don’t look like 
my handwriting. I don’t know.

MR. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, may I make an 
inquiry of Mrs. Lea?

V O IR  DIRE EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Mrs. Lea, let me ask you, do you 
recall receiving a letter from Mr. Conrad Pearson to come 
by Iris office to sign some papers with reference to this case? 
A  Yes.

Q  Did you go by his office?
A Yes.

O Do you recall whether the answers to interrogatories 
that you have there were the ones that you signed?
A Yes, I recall.

THE COU RT: But you said that didn’t look like 
your signature.

THE WITNESS: You see, everything has been so 
long ago, I don’t know. I might sign my name a 
different way.



54

THE CO U RT: Well, I know, but you know what 
your (31) signature looked like three years ago as well 
as you did then, don’t you?

THE WITNESS: Well, my signature changes along 
with me, I guess. As I grow older, my signature changes.

THE CO U RT: Oh, your signature changes as you 
grow older?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COU RT: You don’t recognize it from three 
years ago?

THE WITNESS: If I signed it the same way I 
did now, I probably would.

THE COU RT: You probably would?

CROSS EXAM IN ATIO N  (Continuing)

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Well, this was last year, Mrs. Lea; 
this was in March 1967.
A Well, I still say I don’t know.

O Returning to my original question, is that a correct 
statement that you gave in answer to Interrogatory Num­
ber 6, namely that you had sought employment prior to 
September 2, 1965, and stated, “ I sought to apply for 
employment at the Cone Mills Eno Plant in Hillsborough 
in July 1966 and was not allowed to complete application.”

Is that true?

A I don’t remember saying that July 1966.

(32) O You don’t remember saying that?

A July 1966.

Q  Well, did you go there in July 1966?
A I went there before. I went there twice. I went there



55

—-the first time I went there I don’t know if they gave me 
an application or not. The second time I went there I was 
allowed to fill out an application and talk to Mr. King.

Q  The second time was in September ’65?
A Uh-huh.

Q  What is your best recollection as to when the first 
time was when you went there?
A I don’t even have the slightest idea.

Q  You don’t know whether it was in 1965 or—
A I think it was in 1965.

Q  But you’re not sure?
A I think it was in 1965.

Q  But you don’t know which month it was in?
A  No, I don’t.

Q  And whom did you talk with on this first occasion that 
you went to the Eno Plant?
A I asked the lady— I mean I told the lady at the desk 
that I came there to fill out an application for a job.

Q  What did she say?
A I don’t remember.

Q  Who accompanied you on this first trip?

(33) A  I don’t even know who all accompanied me. I 
think it was Mrs. Pinnix, and I don’t know who else.

Q  But you do know that she accompanied you on this first 
trip?
A Yes.

Q  Did you know anyone who worked at the Eno Plant at 
either time that you applied for a job there?
A No.

Q  Did the company take your application for employ­



56

ment on the first time that you applied for a job there? 
A I don’t know.

Q  You don’t know?
A I don’t know what I did. All I know, I went up there 
and asked to fill out an application. I asked to fill out an 
application; I don’t know whether I filled it out or what. 
She didn’t give me an application. I don’t know what 
happened. I forgot.

Q  Mrs. Lea, I show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 12, which is 
a transcript of your testimony given in a hearing in this 
room on October 20, 1966. On Page 7, Line 23— well, Line 
19: Question: “ Did you say that you had previously been 
to the Eno Plant for a job?”

Answer: “ Yes.”

Question: “About when was that?”

Answer: “ I don’t remember exactly when. It was be­
tween (34) March and that date. I don’t know exactly 
when. But they should have my application on file there.”

On Page 8: Question: “ In 1965, last year?”

Answer: “Yes.”

Question: “And they did take your application?” 

Answer: “Yes.”

Is that correct?

A I don’t know. I reckon so. It’s been so long I can’t 
remember everything that happened.

Q  Now coming to September 2, 1964, how did you go 
to the Eno Plant? ’65. Excuse me.
A I went in a car.
Q  In an automobile?
A Yes.



57

Q  Whose automobile?
A My husband’s.

Q  Did you drive?
A Yes.

Q  Who went with you?
A A group of ladies.

Q  How many?
A I don’t know.

Q  Can you give the names of any of them?
A Yes.

Q  Who were they?
(35) A Mrs. Lizza Mae Bradshaw, Mrs. Romona Pin- 
nix, Mrs. Annie Tinnin, and I don’t know who else. It 
might have been someone else. I don’t know.

Q  Where did you pick these ladies up to go to the Eno 
Plant on that day?
A I picked Mrs. Bradshaw and Mrs. Pinnix up at their 
home, and Mrs. Tinnin got with me at the church.

Q  At the church?
A  Yes.

Q  What church was that?
A It was a church in Efland.

Q  Was it a church that you were a member of?
A No.

Q How did you happen to pick her up at a church?
A I don’t know what you mean.

0  Well, how did you happen to go to a church and pick 
up this lady?
A Well, some of our leaders in our community knew that
1 was seeking a job, knew that the ladies and I were seek­



58

ing a job, and they came to me and told me that all the 
ladies that were seeking a job were to come over at this 
church. I can’t think of the name of it now. And they were 
trying to help us to get a job because we wanted one real 
bad, and that at the church they would have to advise us 
on how to make application, what to do in order to get one.

(36) Q  Did you get out of the automobile when you 
arrived at the church?

A Yes.

Q  Who was in charge of the meeting?

M R. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, I object to that. 

THE COU RT: Overruled.

MR. CHAMBERS: Go ahead and answer, Mrs. 
Lea.

A  Repeat the question, please.

O (By Mr. Brooks) Who was in charge of the meeting 
at the church that you have testified about?
A Meeting?

O Well, this group of people there, who addressed them 
or who told you how to go about seeking a job?
A I don’t know.

Q  Well, was it a man or a woman?
A We just got the ladies together and went out to where 
we wanted to go.

Q  All right. Did you go to any other place on that day 
except the Eno Plant?
A Yes.

O What other places did you go to?
A I went to the Colonial Store in Mebane. I don’t know 
— I don’t know where else.



59

Q  Did you go to any other manufacturing plant?
A We went to some mill.
(37) Q  Did you make application at this other mill for
employment?

A I don’t know.
M R. CHAMBERS: Object, Your Honor. May I 

be heard, if Your Honor please, on this question?

THE COU RT: Yes, sir.

MR. CHAMBERS: I submit to the Court that 
whether Mrs. Lea, Mrs. Tinnin, and Mrs. Pinnix went 
anywhere, made application anywhere else, met with 
someone at a church trying to help them find a job, 
that that has absolutely nothing at all, any relevance 
at all in this connection. The question before the 
Court, as I understand it, is whether Mrs. Lea was 
denied employment by Cone Mills because of her race, 
in violation of Title V II; and if that is the question 
before the Court, I submit that whether she went 
anywhere else to apply for a job would not be relevant.

In addition, I desire to point out to the Court 
that we were denied when we asked to inquire into 
the practices of this company in its own plant be­
cause the Court said it wouldn’t have any bearing 
on the issues —  or relevancy —  on the issues before 
the Court in this case; and if that be true, then I sub­
mit that wherever she went would have no relevance at 
all in this proceeding.

(38) In addition, I submit that inquiry by counsel of 
individual’s involved would be violative of the Court’s 
decision in NAACP versus Alabama where the Court 
has said that the effort to get the names of indi­
viduals involved in civil rights organizations would



60

be of no material relevance to the State and there­
fore that to make such inquiry would jeopardize the 
rights of the individuals involved in the proceeding, 
and would be violative of their rights under the First 
Amendment. I submit that that would be the case here 
and that it would have no bearing in this case at all.

THE CO U RT: Well, my impression is that it 
really has no direct relevancy. It might have some 
substantial bearing on the credibility of the witness. 
I don’t know whether it would or not.

What do you have to say, Mr. Brooks? It has no 
direct bearing on the issue involved. This is cross 
examination.

M R. BROOKS: The defendant has pleaded in its 
answer and carried forward as a contention and triable 
issue as set forth on Page 2 of the Final Pre-Trial 
Order that these plaintiffs did not seek employment 
on September 2, 1965, in good faith, wanting a job, 
rather that they were seeking to stir up and develop

(39) a cause of action, to file charges against this com­
pany and others with the E.E.O.C.; and that we 
will show through the development of the testimony 
that these charges were filed on the same day they 
applied for employment at the Eno Plant, that they 
went to other places in their tour to seek employment—  
or to make applications for employment, and that this 
was not a bona-fide effort to seek employment on the 
part of these plaintiffs; and that this goes to the equity 
of the action, because an action under the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 is equitable in nature.

Furthermore, we think it certainly reflects on the 
issue, if the point ever comes to where attorneys’ fees 
are sought by the plaintiffs, if they win their case,



61

this would go to that issue, that they are not entitled 
to attorneys’ fees in a case of his kind.

THE COU RT: Well, Mr. Brooks, what I want to 
avoid is going on here for several days; I can see 
going into the whole Cone organization, of internal 
practices and employment. We are here to determine 
whether these three plaintiffs were denied employment, 
when they applied there, on account of their race. 
I think this evidence is only competent as it bears 
on the credibility of the witness. You are entitled

(40) to more latitude on cross examination, but I am 
fearful if we start getting into these issues now, we are 
going to open up others; and I think we are going to 
have to stick to the issues that we are trying. They 
have been announced; Judge Gordon ruled what they 
were. Let’s stick to evidence bearing on that issue. Of 
course, cross examination can test credibility of wit­
nesses and their good faith, but I think that’s as far 
as you can go.

Now if it comes down to a point of whether a 
court of equity should award attorney fees later, if 
it’s found that the defendant did engage in discrimi­
natory practice on September 2, 1965, why I will not 
foreclose you from going into this at that time to show 
that attorney fees should not be awarded in this case. 
But on the main action, at this time I think, except 
to the extent that you think it affects credibility— if 
you are asking these questions of the witness to test 
the veracity of the witness, then I won’t limit you—  
but otherwise, I think you should go on to some other 
phase of the matter.

M R. BROOKS: All right. If it please the Court, 
I don’t want to belabor the point, but Judge Gordon



62

has held that this is a triable issue as raised by 
the defendant. He has held that in his memorandum.

(41) If you will make reference to Page 4 of the Final. 
Pre-Trial Order, at the bottom under (b ), the triable 
issues as contended by the defendant are the same as 
set forth in its statement of contentions on Page 2 
and 3; and Contention Number Two is the one we have 
been talking about. Judge Gordon in his order has 
said that these are triable issues.

Secondly, I would point out that in the deposi­
tions which the plaintiffs have offered, there is testi­
mony of this purport in these depositions; and so 
that, in effect, you will have in evidence some of this 
line of questioning and would be excluding others.

Finally, I would say that I do not intend to 
belabor the point. I have just a few questions of 
each witness along this line.

MR. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, I would like to 
respond to that just briefly. First of all, on the mat­
ter of the depositions that we introduced, Mr. Brooks 
went into the matter of how these plaintiffs got to­
gether to go down to apply for employment. I call 
the Court’s attention to the case of NAACP versus 
Alabama. The Court has already gone into detail 
as to the matter of operation of the NAACP. This 
is something that is well-known. The matter came

(42) before this Court in the recent school case of Gill 
versus Concord, where interrogatories were addressed 
to plaintiffs of where they got their lawyers, how much 
they were paying them, and so forth. Now that is a 
matter the Court has already foreclosed. It makes no 
difference whatever, if the defendant is violating Title 
VII.



63

On the matter of attorneys’ fees, the Court has 
already spoken on that. The plaintiffs here contend 
that they are entitled to a job at the Eno Plant. They 
are asking for a job there. They are saying that they 
were denied employment there because of their race; 
and if the defendant doesn’t think they are sincere, 
why doesn’t the organization offer them employment?

THE COU RT: Do you know of any litigated cases 
under the Civil Rights Act where if a person wasn’t 
sincere in wanting employment and sought it, and in 
truth and in fact the company did not know of that 
and engaged in discriminatory practices and denied 
them employment, that that doesn’t constitute a viola­
tion, Mr. Brooks?

MR. BROOKS: I do not know of any cases. There 
are not too many cases that have been reported.

THE C O U R T : I realize that, but we are beginning
(43) now to get right many in the books.

MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir, but they are on prelimi­
nary motions rather on a trial of the merits.

THE COURT: Well, I don’t see if the plaintiffs 
can prove that, in violation of Title VII, that the 
defendant did have at its Eno Plant a policy of not 
employing Negroes simply because of their race, 
whether they were sent there by someone to test the 
practices or not, it does not seem to me would be 
relevant to the issue, which you say the issue is, were 
they denied employment. Isn’t that what you said the 
triable issue is?

MR. BROOKS: Yes.

THE COU RT: Because of race. Now whether they 
went there for an ulterior purpose or were sent there



64

by an organization, I don’t see that that, if in truth 
and in fact the defendant did engage in discriminatory 
practices —  we haven’t got to that issue yet the 
fact that they were sent there by someone to make a 
point of it, do you think that would excuse them?

M R. BROOKS: When you get to the matter of 
equitable relief, I think it would, Your Honor. This 
is purely an equitable action. And if these people 
were not seeking employment in good faith, if they 
were out to make litigation, even if you found that

(44) they were turned down, it would be within the 
Court’s province to say that equitable relief ought to 
be withheld from them, because the matter of relief 
under the Act is entirely up to the Court even if you 
find a violation. Under Section 706(g) it states that if 
the Court finds that the respondent has intentionally 
engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful 
employment practice charged in the complaint, the 
Court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such 
unlawful employment practice and order such affirma­
tive action as may be appropriate, which may include 
reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without 
back pay.

A possible analogy is under the National Labor 
Relations Act; there are many instances there where 
there can be found a technical violation of the Act 
but still no remedy is warranted, because that is a 
matter in the first instance within the discretion of 
the Board, and in the final analysis of review in the 
Court.

M R. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, I submit to the 
Court that the Supreme Court in Newman versus Piggy- 
Park has already addressed itself to the same issue 
the defendant is raising here, and that question is



65

whether the plaintiff should be awarded counsel fees
(45) under the Act of ’64. Now the Court in that case 

has ruled that the party obtaining relief would be 
entitled to counsel fees; and again I submit to the 
Court that the Supreme Court is not oblivious of the 
duties of the civil rights organizations or the NAACP.

We submit here that —  even though we contend 
whether it was established that the plaintiffs went 
out without any sincerity at all for employment, that 
that would really have no bearing here -— but we sub­
mit that that was not the case with these plaintiffs. 
They were without employment and they were seeking 
employment at the time they went to the Eno Plant.

THE CO U RT: Well, what I ’m afraid, Mr. Brooks, 
we’re going to be here for three weeks on this thing, 
because he’s going to want to go back and get in the 
whole thing. You get into a twilight area. But if the 
plaintiff proves that these people went down there 
and made application and they were turned away—  
they had vacancies, they needed women with their skills, 
and simply because they were Negroes they were turned 
down, even though they were sent there, if you won on 
that basis here, it would be an empty victory, in my 
judgment, a totally empty victory and one that would 
not benefit you whatever. I don’t believe that would

(46) be any help to you at all; and ŵ e ought to limit it 
to the issue: Did they go there, did they make appli­
cation and, if they were turned down, why were they 
turned down? I think anything bearing on that is 
relevant.

I will not foreclose you at some future time when 
it comes to forming a judgment, if you want to show 
some of this. I understand it’s already in the deposi­
tions, isn’t it?



66

MR. BROOKS: Yes, sir.

THE COU RT: He has introduced it.

MR. BROOKS: I was going to ask if Your Honor 
precludes us from further inquiry into this subject 
matter, I do not understand that that would be ruled 
out of the depositions.

THE CO U RT: No, I ’m not attempting to do that 
now. You know, we’re still at the sparring stage and 
it’s so terribly difficult for me to know how to do 
the right thing by both of you, whether this has any 
relevancy now. If you’re going to go into it at great 
length, then you’re going to open up the door for a 
whole line of inquiry on the other side and he’s going 
to say, “ Well, why don’t you be fair to me as you did 
to him and let me inquire into it now and then rule 
on it later?” That’s just going to go into a wild

(47) fishing expedition that’s not going to serve any 
useful purpose to anyone and will just clutter the 
record with things wholly irrelevant.

Now what I would like to get down to as soon as 
we can: Did these people go there, did they apply, 
were they offered employment; if not, why?

MR. BROOKS: Well, if I understand the Court 
correctly, the deposition testimony that has been of­
fered by the plaintiffs is accepted as evidence in this 
record?

THE CO U RT: When they’re offered. They have 
been identified. I don’t believe it has been formally 
said, “ I now offer these in evidence,”  giving you a 
chance to voice an objection as to whether they will 
be received. The plaintiff offered these exhibits and 
identified them, but I do not recall at the moment 
that there has been a formal tender of those exhibits



67

Into evidence, giving you a chance to voice an objec­
tion. I don’t believe you have said, “ I have no objec­
tion,” or, “ I do object,” one way or another down to 
this point. I might be in error.

MR. CHAMBERS: We never did formally tender 
the exhibits, but for the record we would state that 
we do propose to tender them.

THE CO U RT: Do you object to them?

(48) MR. BROOKS: No, sir.

THE COU RT: All right. Let Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 
1 through 21 be received in evidence.

(The documents above referred to, 
(heretofore marked for identification, 
(were received in evidence as: 
(PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS NOS. 1 
(through 21.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Mrs. Lea, at what time of day did 
you arrive at the Eno Plant on September 2, 1965, seeking 
employment?
A  I believe it was in the morning.

Q  Whom did you speak with at the Eno office?
A I spoke with the receptionist there.

Q  Do you know whether that receptionist is this lady 
that is sitting back of me?
A No. I didn’t pay that much attention to her.

Q  What did the receptionist do or say on this occasion? 
A She gave us all a application and told us to fill it out; 
and I ’m not sure but I think she said that we could speak 
with— that Mr. King would be in later, that he was out 
and would be in later, or something.

THE COU RT: How long since you had had a job



68

at this time? How long since you had worked outside 
the home?

THE WITNESS: From now?

(49) THE CO U RT: No. When you went down there in 
September 1965.

THE WITNESS: I hadn’t worked at all.

THE CO U RT: You had never worked?

THE WITNESS No, not no more than driving a 
school bus.

THE CO U RT: How old are you?

THE WITNESS: Twenty-seven.

THE CO U RT: You’re not sure?

THE WITNESS: Well, I forget that too.

THE CO U RT: You forget that too?

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

THE CO U RT: You don’t even remember how old 
you are?

THE WITNESS: Sometimes I don’t. I just can’t 
remember.

THE CO U RT: Well, this was three years ago.

If your memory is correct that you are 27, you were 
about 24 then, weren’t you?

THE WITNESS: Like that, yes.

THE COU RT: What?

THE WITNESS: Yes. Let’s see, 27— yeah, about 
24.

THE CO U RT: You had never worked anywhere.



69

Are you married?

(50) THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COU RT: When were you married?

THE WITNESS: In ’60.

THE COU RT: And you had never sought employ­
ment or worked outside the house; you had just kept 
house for your husband?

THE WITNESS: I worked with Mr. Bradshaw; 
that was in tobacco.

THE COU RT: What? I can’t hear you.

THE WITNESS: That was in tobacco; I worked 
in tobacco. M y husband farms. And I worked with the 
bus; I drove a school bus.

THE COU RT: Was that while you were in school?

THE WITNESS: That was after I got married too.

THE COU RT: Oh, you drove a school bus after 
you got married?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE COU RT: All right. Go ahead.

Q (By Mr. Brooks) Mrs. Lea, you were testifying that 
you were given an application form by a receptionist. I 
show you Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 6 and ask you if that is a copy 
of the application form that you filled out on this occasion, 
A It was a little form with a card.

MR. CHAMBERS: May we go off the record one 
moment?

(51) THE COU RT: Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)



70

M R. CHAMBERS: If Mr. Brooks is agreeable, 
we’ll stipulate that that is a copy of the form she 
filled out.

MR. BROOKS: All right.

0  (By Mr. Brooks) What did you do with the application 
form after you filled it out?
A I don’t know if I gave that application form to the 
receptionist or Mr. King. I can’t remember exactly which 
one that I gave it to. I don’t know.

Q  Were you interviewed on this occasion?
A  Yes.

Q  By whom?
A Mr. King.

Q  Where did this interview take place?
A In an office there at the mill.

Q  What did he say to you?
A I don’t know what you’re talking about. He spoke to 
me.

Q  During this interview what questions did he ask you 
or what statements did he make to you?
A He asked me who was my husband.

THE COU RT: Asked what?

THE WITNESS: He asked me who was my hus­
band, (52) after he found out that I was married.

A (Continuing) I believe he asked me how many childrens
1 had. He asked me just about every question that was on 
that application blank, I believe.
Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Did he make any statements as to 
why he was not giving you a job?
A He didn’t hire colored womens.



71

Q  Is that the only statement he made to you about not 
giving you a job?
A That’s the only thing that I—  That’s the reason why I 
figured that I didn’t get a job. I went there —  I let him 
know I went there wanting employment. I didn’t care if 
it was that day; I wanted it. And he let me know he didn’t 
hire colored womens. So I felt like he didn’t give me a job 
because I was a Negro.
Q  Did he accept your application? After the interview 
did he keep it or give it back to you?
A He didn’t turn it back to me.

O I believe you testified in answer to questions by your 
counsel that you were employed in October of that year by 
Burlington Industries; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q  Did you have any other employment between the time 
that you applied to Cone Mills in September 1965 and the 
time you got the job at Burlington?
(53) A No.

THE COU RT: What day in October did you go 
to work for Burlington?

THE WITNESS: I have it in my handbag, if I 
can get it.

THE CO U RT: All right. Get your handbag out 
and tell me.

THE WITNESS: It’s the 10th month, the 21st day, 
and the ’65 year. I have it written down in my book.

THE COU RT: The 21st—

THE WITNESS: Yeah, ’65.

THE CO U RT: The 10th month, the 21st day?



72

THE WITNESS: Yes. I was getting $1.34 a hour. 

THE CO U RT: All right.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) In your Interrogatory Number 3 you 
state in answer, quote: “ I was employed by Burlington 
Industries in October 1965 as a spring winder at the rate 
of approximately $60.00 per week.”  Is that correct?
A I think so, approximately.

O And I believe you testified that you have continued 
to work for Burlington Industries in the same plant?
A Yes.

MR. BROOKS: No further questions.
* & *

(54) REDIRECT EXA M IN ATIO N

Q (By Mr. Chambers) I have one question, Mrs. Lea. 
You say you stay in Orange County, North Carolina?
A  Yes.

Q  At the time you sought employment, you were in Cedar 
Grove?
A Yes.

Q  Were Negro women generally employed in the plants of 
manufacturers around that area?

MR. BROOKS: Objection.

THE COURT: Well, objection sustained. I don’t 
know what that has to do with it. W e’re trying this 
one issue here. Don’t go astray again.

Q (By Mr. Chambers) You sav you got married in 1960? 
A Yes.

O And how many children did you have in 1965?
A Three, I think.



73

Q  What year did you finish high school?
A ’60. 1960.

Q  Just one final question, Mrs. Lea. All of the ladies 
who went with you to Cone Mills on September 2, 1965, 
were they Negro or white?
A Negro.

MR. CHAMBERS: I have no further questions.

MR. BROOKS: No further questions.

(55) M R. CHAMBERS: Come down.

THE COU RT: Come down.
(Witness excused.)

THE COU RT: Let’s take a very brief recess.

(Whereupon, a short recess wras taken.)

THE COU RT: Call your next witness.

M R. CHAMBERS: Your Honor, we would like to 
identify as Plaintiffs’ collective Exhibit Number 22 
the answers to interrogatories of Mrs. Lea, Mrs. Pin- 
nix, and Mrs. Tinnin, and we want to tender those.

THE COU RT: Answers to the defendant’s inter­
rogatories?

M R. CHAMBERS: Answers of the plaintiffs to 
the defendant’s interrogatories.

(The documents above referred to 
(were marked for identification as: 
(PLAINTIFFS’ EXH IBIT NO. 22.

MR. CHAMBERS: We would like to call at this
time Mrs. Annie Tinnin.

r
THE COU RT: Is there any objection to that 

exhibit, Mr. Brooks?



74

MR. BROOKS: No, sir.

THE COU RT: All right. Let it be received in 
evidence.

# # #

(56) (The documents above referred to,
(heretofore marked for identification, 
(were received in evidence as: 
(PLAINTIFFS’ EXH IBIT NO. 22.

Thereupon:

ANNIE TINNIN

one of the Plaintiffs herein, was called as a witness in her 
own behalf and, being first duly sworn, was examined and 
testified on her oath as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) State your name, please.
A Mrs. Annie Tinnin.

Q  What is your address, Mrs. Tinnin?
A Route 1, Box 152, Efland.

THE COURT: Where?

THE WITNESS: Efland.

THE COU RT: Efland?

THE WITNESS: E-f-l-a-n-d.

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Is that in Orange County?
A Yes.

Q  Did you reside at that address on September 2, 1965? 
A Yes.

Q Mrs. Tinnin, have you ever made application for



75

(57) employment at the Cone Mills Corporation?

A Yes.

Q  Would you tell the Court when you made the appli­
cation?
A You mean the first time I went to apply for a job or—

Q  Yes, just when you went to apply for a job.
A I went to apply for a job in June 1965.

O Did you go alone or did you go with somebody at 
that time?
A Well, my sister and I.

Q  Were you working at that time?
A Yes, I was working.

O Where were you working at that time?
A City Laundry in Burlington.

THE COU RT: When did you first apply, in June 
1965? What day in June?

THE WITNESS: Fifth, I think. Around the first.

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) You and your sister went to apply 
for a job at Cone Mills at that time?
A Yes.

Q  At the Eno Plant? And that’s how far from your home, 
Mrs. Tinnin?
A About five miles.

O Now you stated that you were working at that time? 
A I was.

Q  Would you state again for the record where you 
worked?

(58) A I worked at the City Laundry in Burlington.



76

Q  What were you doing at the City Laundry in Bur­
lington?
A  Pressing shirts.

Q  How much did you make a week?
A Well, I worked on the basis of production, and I got 
paid by the shirts that I pressed. I pressed a certain amount 
of shirts a day and that’s what I made, approximately 
from 35 to 45 dollars a week.

Q  Were you employed by Cone Mills the first time you 
went to apply for a job?
A No.

O Did you fill out an application form?
A  No.

O Were you told anything by the representative there at 
Cone Mills when you made application?
A  Well, I didn’t talk to anyone but the secretary. There 
was a little window like and she raised it up and my sister 
and I, we told her we was asking for a job and she said 
they didn’t hire Negro ladies there.

THE CO U RT: Said what?

THE WITNESS: They didn’t hire Negro ladies 
there.

Q (By Mr. Chambers) Did you go back and apply for 
a job later?
A Yes, went back.

(59) Q  When did you go back?

A It was the same summer. It was maybe a week or two
later we went back.

Q  Did you fill out an application form then?
A No, we didn’t fill out an application form.



Q  Do you recall what you were told at that time?
A I ’m not sure, but I think that she said—-we asked to 
fill out an application and she said there was no openings 
at that time.

O You and your sister went back a second time?
A  Yes.

THE CO U RT: When was that second time?

THE WITNESS: It was the same summer. I don’t 
know whether it was the last of June or July. It was
in the same summer. Maybe it was a week or two later.

Q (By Mr. Chambers) Did you have occasion to go back 
a third time?
A Yes. When I went back the third time, we had—  See, 
where I worked, there was this guy, Mr. Bradshaw, he 
came around and told us if we really wanted better jobs 
that they had finally discovered a better way of helping 
us find a job, so—

THE COU RT: What is that? Mr. Bradshaw? Who 
is Mr. Bradshaw?

THE WITNESS: Well, he was one of the— I forget.
(60) They said that they —  they wanted to help the 

Negro ladies in that community since there was a lot 
of them out of work at that time. So we went down 
asking for jobs and they let us fill out an application.

O (By Mr. Chambers) You say “ there” ; are you refer­
ring to Cone Mills?
A. Yes.

Q  You went back to the Eno Plant and applied the third 
time for a job?
A Yes.



78

Q  Was that on September 2, 1965?
A  Yes.

Q  And you say you filled out an application form this 
time?
A  Yes.

Q  Do you recall, Mrs. Tinnin, the person you talked to 
at that time?
A Yes. Mr. King.

THE CO U RT: I can’t hear her.

O (By Mr. Chambers) Would you speak a little louder 
and tell the Court who you talked to at that time?
A Mr. King.

Q  Is that Mr. Otto King who is sitting there back of 
counsel for the defendant?
A Yes.

(61) Q  What did he tell you at that time?

THE CO U RT: Now are you talking about Sep­
tember the 2nd now?

M R. CHAMBERS: Yes.
A Well, we filled out our application. We left— the win­
dow there—  Anyway, we left them there and he told us 
if he had any openings he would let us know.

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Did he interview you at that time?

Will you say “ yes” or “ no” for the record, so the 
Reporter will have it?
A No.

Q  Did he offer you employment?
A No.

Q  Did he ever contact you and offer you employment?
A No.



79

Q Were you working at that time?
A  Yes.
Q  Where were you working at that time?
A City Laundry in Burlington.

O Do you recall what you were making at that time, at 
September 2, 1965?
A Still approximately 35 to 45 dollars a week.

Q Are you still working at City Laundry?
A  No. I ’m not working any place.

O When did you stop working at City Laundry?
(62) A Last June.

Q  Why did you stop working?
A Well, I was expecting a baby.

Q  Have you sought employment?
A Yes.

O Did you go back to Cone Mills any more?
A No, I didn’t go back any more.

Q  Have you heard anything from them?
A No.

O Do you want a job?
A Yes.

THE COURT: What did Mr. King tell you when 
you went there on September 2nd and filled out an 
application, and you saw Mr. King? You said he didn’t 
interview you. What did he say to you?

THE WITNESS: He just said that when he would 
get some openings, that he would let us know.

THE COU RT: He said he didn’t have any open­
ings?



80

THE WITNESS: No, he didn’t have any openings 
then.

THE CO U RT: Well, you were with the other two 
girls at the time he was talking to you?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE CO U RT: And the only thing, you said he 
took your application?

(63) THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE CO U RT: He didn’t interview you; he didn’t 
ask you any questions?

THE WITNESS: Not that I can recall.

THE CO U RT: And told you that he didn’t have 
any openings then?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE CO U RT: And then told you that he would 
do what, get in touch with you, you say?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE CO U RT: All right.

O (By Mr. Chambers) Do you know, Mrs. Tinnin, 
whether any Negro women worked at that plant or not? 
A No.

Q  Well, let me ask the question this way. Did any Negro 
women work at the plant at that time to your knowledge? 
A No. I don’t think so.

Q  Now when you went in the office there with Mr. King, 
did all of you go in together?
A Yes.



81

Q  And do you recall whether he talked to you in a group 
or he talked to you one or two at a time or what?
A Well, we was all there together.

M R. CHAMBERS: I have no further questions.
# #

(64) CROSS EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Mrs. Tinnin, had you ever worked 
in a textile mill at any time before September 1965, or 
since that time?
A No.

Q  What other kind of work had you performed except 
working in a laundry?
A That’s the only work I ever did.

THE COU RT: What did she say?

MR. BROOKS: She said that’s the only type 
work she ever did.

THE WITNESS: Yes, the only work I ever did. 
Q  (By Mr. Brooks) How long did you work for a laundry 
before you quit this last June?
A I think twelve— twelve years.

O When you speak of “ last June,”  do you mean June 
of this year, 1968?
A ’67. '
Q  I didn’t understand you.
A ’67.

O You haven’t been working since June a year ago, is 
that correct?
A That’s right.

O At the time that you quit to have the baby, what were 
you earning at the Burlington laundry?



82

(65) A What was I earning?

Q  Yes.
A Approximately 35 to 45 dollars a week.

O Did you testify that you had been to the Eno Plant 
several times in 1965?
A Yes.

Q  Had you been there any time before the year 1965? 
A No.

Q  Mrs. Tinnin, I show you your interrogatory which has 
been offered as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 22, and show you In­
terrogatory Number 6, which was verified by you on March 
20, 1967. The question is asked: “ Have you applied for 
employment at Cone Mills’ Eno Plant in Hillsborough on 
any occasion prior or subsequent to September 1965?

“ If the answer to this question is ‘yes,’ give the dates 
of such application and state the substance of any inquiries 
or applications made.”

Answer: “ Yes. I sought to apply for employment at 
Cone Mills’ Eno Plant in Hillsborough in June 1965 and 
was not allowed to complete or fill out application.”

Is that a correct answer?

A Yes.

O Is that a full answer?
A Yes.

Q  Well now, no mention is made in that answer, is there,
(66) concerning this second visit in the summer of 1965 
to Cone Mills?

MR. CHAMBERS: Well, we object to that, Your 
Honor.

THE COU RT: What?



83

M R. CHAMBERS: We object to that question.

THE CO U RT: Objection overruled.

M R. CHAMBERS: As I understood the witness to 
testify, that she applied there in June or it might 
have been July; and the answer there states that she 
applied in June 1965, without any indication of whether 
it was one or two times.

MR. BROOKS: It asks to give the dates of such 
application, and it is my understanding from her testi­
mony on direct that she went there three times in 1965.

THE COU RT: Overruled.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) M y question, Mrs. Tinnin, were there 
more than the two times that you went to the Eno Plant 
in 1965, one in June 1965 and one in September 1965?
A Well, my sister and I went in June. Then we went back 
later— I don’t know. It was all in the same summer.

Q  Now the time that you went back later, was that the 
occasion when the group of you went there—
A No.

(67) Q  — or was it another occasion?
A No. We just was job-hunting.

THE COU RT: I can’t hear a thing she says.
THE WITNESS: We wanted a job and we was just 

out looking for a job. We was just looking for a job 
and there wasn’t a group of us, just my sister and I.

THE COU RT: Well, how many times did you go 
there? You said there that the only time you went 
there before September 2, 1965, was in June. Now how 
many times did you go?

THE WITNESS: I went twice before September 
2nd.



84

THE CO U RT: All right.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Now can you tell us the month that 
you went the second time in 1965?

A No, I don’t recall. I don’t remember the month.
Q  Did you talk with Mr. King on either of these occasions

in the summer of 1965?
A No.

O Do you know whether the person that you talked with 
on these occasions was the lady that is sitting behind me? 
A I ’m not sure but as far as I can remember, she was a 
redheaded lady. I ’m not sure.

Q Did you know anyone who worked at the Eno Plant 
in 1965?
A  No.

(68) THE CO U RT: What did you say?

THE WITNESS: No.

THE CO U RT: You didn’t know anybody?

THE WITNESS: Well, no, not exactly.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) You testified a few minutes ago 
something about Mr. Bradshaw talking to you about get­
ting a job. I didn’t understand just what your testimony 
was in that respect. Would you give that again, please?
A Well, he said he knew how we could get help in seeking 
a job—

THE CO U RT: I can’t hear a thing she’s saying. 
You’ll have to talk out.

A He said he knew how we could get help in getting this 
job— to get a job, if we wanted to apply for jobs. There 
were a lot of Negro ladies in the community that didn’t 
have work.



85

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) When was this said to you?
A September 2nd.

Q How did you go to the Eno Plant on September 2nd? 
A With Mrs. Lea.

O Was anyone else with you?
A Mrs. Pinnix and Mrs. Bradshaw.

Q  What time did you arrive at the plant?
A I don’t know the exact time, but it was in the morning.

Q  What did you do when you arrived there?
(69) A We got out of the car and went in, asked for a 
job, asked for an application for a job.

Q  Were you given an application?
A Yes.

Q  Did you fill it out?
A  Yes.

O Who gave you the application?
A The secretary.

Q  That would be this lady that’s sitting back of me?
A Well, I ’m not sure.

Q  What happened then?
A Well, she told us to wait a few minutes, and we waited 
a few minutes, and then that Mr. King would see us. And 
then we went in.

Q  Did he then interview you?
A No, he didn’t interview us. We just filled out the appli­
cation, and he told us that if he would see where he needed 
any help he would let us know.

Q Where was he and where were you at the time he made 
that statement?
A In his office.



8 6

Q  Who else was present at the time he made the state­
ment?
A I don’t know if all four of us was in there at one time. 
Mrs. Lea and Mrs. Pinnix and me, we were all in there 
together.

(70) Q  You say Mrs. Lea, Mrs. Pinnix, and yourself 
were all three in the office?
A Uh-huh.

Q  Did he ask you any questions about statements that 
appeared on your application form?
A I don’t remember.

Q  Did he ask you if you had had any experience working 
in a textile mill?
A I don’t remember if he did.

O About how long would you say that you stayed in Mr. 
King’s office on this occasion?
A No longer than to fill out the application.

Q  I believe you testified that at the time you were work­
ing at the City Laundry in Burlington?
A Right.

Q  When you didn’t get a job at the Eno Plant, you went 
back and continued your work at the City Laundry?
A Yes.

Q  Did you seek any other employment on September 
2nd except at the Eno Plant?
A I don’t remember if I did or not.

Q  Is your answer you don’t remember?
A I don’t remember if I went any place else on that 
particular day, but I went— I kept looking for jobs. I 
don’t remember on that particular day.

(71) MR. BROOKS: No further questions.



87

M R. CHAMBERS: Come down, Mrs. Tinnin. 
Thank you very much.

(Witness excused.)

M R. CHAMBERS: I would like to call Mrs. Pinnix.
*  *  *

Thereupon:

RO M O N A PINNIX

one of the Plaintiffs herein, was called as a witness in her 
own behalf and, being first duly sworn, was examined and 
testified on her oath as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

O (By Mr. Chambers) State your name, please.
A Mrs. Romona Pinnix.

Q  What is your address, Mrs. Pinnix?
A Route 1, Efland, North Carolina.

O How far do you stay from the Eno Plant?
A About twelve miles.

O Have you had occasion to apply for employment at 
Cone Mills?
A Yes.

Q Will you state when you made your application for 
employment?
A I don’t know exactly the date. But I went there in
(72) June or July and applied for a job, and they said 
they weren’t taking any applications.

Q What year was that?
A ’65.

O Did you go alone or did you go with somebody?
A  I went with two other ladies.



88

Q  Do you know their names?
A  Yes.

Q  Will you state their names?
A Gaynelle Owens and Mrs. Carolyn Evans.

O Were you working at that time?
A No.

Q  Were you told to come back?
A  No.

O Did you subsequently make application for employment 
at the Cone Mills’ Eno Plant?
A Yeah. Went back in September.

Q  Did you go back at that time with Mrs. Lea and Mrs. 
Tinnin and others?
A Yes.

O Did you fill out an application at that time?
A Yes. They gave us an application card to fill out.

0  What happened after you filled out the application? 
A We were standing down there in a little foyer and we 
filled out the cards on our pocketbooks, and she told us that
(73) Mr. King wasn’t in but he would be in later, and 
we waited on him.

Q  Did you talk with Mr. King?
A And when he came in, he talked to us.

Q  Where did he talk with you?
A Went in the office.

Q  What did he tell you?
A Told us they didn’t have anybody— 15 or 20 years—  
all the employees they had had been there for a long time.

Q  Did he tell you whether he was going to be able to
offer you employment?



89

A If there ever come up any openings, he would consider
it.

THE CO U RT: He said what?

THE WITNESS: Consider our applications.

THE COU RT: He said he would consider your 
applications?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Did he offer you employment?
A No!
O To your knowledge were any Negro women employed
in that plant at that time?
A Not that I know of.

THE COURT: Do you know, or you don’t know 
of any? Do you know that none were?

(74) THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, I don’t know 
of any.

THE COU RT: Well, I don’t know what you mean 
by your knowledge. Do you have any knowledge one 
way or another?

THE WITNESS: Well, white women worked there.

THE COU RT: Well, I said do you have any 
knowledge one way or another, firsthand knowledge, 
yourself, as to whether any Negro women worked there?

THE WITNESS: No.

O (By Mr. Chambers) Mrs. Pinnix, how long had you
been in this community of Efland?
A Around ten years at that time.

Q  How many textile plants did they have in that area?
A In Hillsborough? They had two, I think.



90

Q  Do you know of any Negro women who had worked at 
either one of the plants, Eno or Hillsborough?
A No.
Q  Were you working at the time that you made applica­
tion for employment at Cone Mills in June or July of ’65? 
A No.

O Were you working at the time you made application for 
employment in September 1965?
A No.

THE CO U RT: What did you say?

(75) THE WITNESS: No.

O (By Mr. Chambers) Are you married, Mrs. Pinnix?
A Yes, I am.

O Were you married at that time?
A Yes.

Q  Do you have any children?
A I have two children.

O Did you have any at that time?
A  Yes.

Q  How many did you have?
A Two.

Q  Did you need employment, Mrs. Pinnix?
A Very badly.

O Have you subsequently been employed?
A Yes.

Q  By whom?
A Burlington Industries.

Q  Where is that located?
A On 85 in Burlington.



91

Q  In Burlington?
A Yes, sir.

Q  What do you do there?
A Board hosiery.

Q  How much do you make there per week?
A Approximately $65.00 a week.

(76) Q  Are you doing piecework?
A Work by production.

O When did you begin working at Burlington Industries? 
A Around October ’65.

Q  Do you know the date?
A The latter part of October.

THE COU RT: Can you give us the date?

THE WITNESS: Around the 22nd or 23rd of 
October.

Q (By Mr. Chambers) Did you go to work with Mrs. Lea? 
A No.

Q  Did you go before or after?
A I went after she went.

THE COURT: October 22nd or 23rd?

THE WITNESS: Yeah, around that.

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Are you still working at Burling­
ton Industries?
A Yes.

Q  What do you make per week?
A Oh, still about the same thing.

Q  Mrs. Pinnix, when you went to Cone Mills in June or 
July of ’65 to apply for employment, you gave the names



92

of two other ladies who went with you; were they Negro 
or white?
A Negro.

Q  When you talked with Mr. King in September of 1965, 
did he advise you of any necessity for renewing your ap­
plication (77) for employment?
A No, he didn’t say anything about it.

Q  Do you know whether they have a requirement that 
you renew your application?
A  Well, most places will tell you to come back—

THE CO U RT: Well, do you know about this place?

THE WITNESS: He didn’t tell me anything about 
coming back and renewing the application.

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Now at the time that he talked 
with you, or at the time you talked with the secretary, in 
filling out your application, did they give you any place 
to sit down to fill out your application form?
A No. We had to stand up.

O And did they give you anything to write on?
A We wrote on each other’s pocketbooks.

Q  And everyone in the group with you had to do it?
A Yes.

M R. CHAMBERS: I have no further questions. 

CROSS EXAM IN ATIO N

O (By Mr. Brooks) Mrs. Pinnix, had you ever worked 
in a textile plant before you got the job at Burlington 
Industries?
A No.



93

Q  Had you ever applied for a job at the Eno Plant before
(78) the date that you mentioned in 1965?
A No.

O On this occasion in June or July of 1965 that you have 
testified that you went to the Eno Plant, whom did you 
talk with at the plant?
A The first time I went?

O Yes.
A The receptionist.

O Do you know whether or not that is the lady that is 
sitting back of me?
A Yes, that’s the same lady.

O And what did she say?
A She said they weren’t taking applications.

Q  They weren’t taking any applications?
A That’s right.

Q  Did you go back to the Eno Plant after that before 
September 2, 1965, or were these the only two times that 
von went to the Cone Plant?
A That’s right.

O On this first occasion, did you talk with Mr. King?
A No.

O You just talked to the receptionist?
A Yes.

O  Did you know anyone in September 1965 or in Decem­
ber of 1965 that worked at the Eno Plant?
(79) A No.

Q Now on September 2nd how did you get to the Eno 
Plant?
A Mrs. Tea came by and picked me up.



94

Q  Who else went with you on that occasion?
A Mrs. Tinnin, Mrs. Lizza Mae Bradshaw, and Mrs. 
Caroline Corbett.

Q  Did all of you go to the plant to seek employment? 
A Yes.

Q  I believe you testified when you gave your deposition 
that you also went to another mill in Hillsborough that 
day; is that correct?
A That’s right.

Q  Do you know the name of that mill?
A I think it’s called the Hillsborough Mill.

O Also known as the Bellevue Mill?
A I guess that’s what they call it.

O Did you make application for employment there on 
the same day?
A They weren’t taking any applications.

O But you went there seeking a job?
A  Yes.

O Did you file a charge with the E.E.O.C. against the 
Bellevue Mill?

MR. CHAMBERS: Objection, Your Honor, on the 
same grounds as previously raised.

(80) THE CO U RT: Well, he can answer that question 
without going into it too much.

A Yes.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) About what time did you arrive at 
the Eno Plant on September 2nd?
A It was in the morning around 11:00 or 11:30.

O Were you interviewed on this occasion by Mr. King? 
A Yes.



Q  Where did the interview take place?
A  We went in the office.

Q  Who went with you?
A I think Mrs. Lea was interviewed at the same time I 
was.

Q  Was there any other person or just the two of you? 
A I think there was just the two of us.

THE COU RT: Who else was?

THE WITNESS: Mrs. Lea.

O (By Mr. Brooks) Didn’t Mr. King ask you any ques­
tions about your application form?
A I don’t recall if he asked me anything about it. He 
looked at it, and he told us that he didn’t have any open­
ings, that all the employees had been there 15 or 20 years.

O Did he say anything else?
A Mrs. Lea asked him did they hire colored women, and 
he said no, he didn’t hire any colored women.

(81) Q  Mrs. Lea asked him that?
A Yes.

Q  How long did this conversation that you and Mrs. Lea 
had with Mr. King last, in his office?
A I don’t know exactly how long it was. It was about 
five minutes— maybe not five minutes, I don’t think.

Q  Did you ever come back to the Eno Plant after Sep­
tember 2nd and ask if there were any openings?
A No.

Q  When you testified that you worked at Burlington 
Industries, and I believe you testified that you earned about 
$65.00 a week; is that correct?
A Yes.



96

Q  Is that $65.00 after the payment of taxes?
A Yes. That’s what I take home.

MR. BROOKS: No further questions.

THE CO U RT: How about Mrs. Annie Tinnin, was 
she in there when you were talking to Mr. King?

THE WITNESS: I don’t remember whether she 
was in there or not. I remember Mrs. Lea being in 
there, but I don’t remember her being in there.

THE CO U RT: Well, do you remember her not 
being in there?

THE WITNESS: Remember who now?

THE CO U RT: Mrs. Tinnin.

(82) THE WITNESS: I don’t remember whether she 
was in there with us or not. I remember Mrs. Lea.

THE COU RT: All right.

* * *

(90) MABEL M ILLER AUSTIN

was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant and, 
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified on her 
oath as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

O (By Mr. Brooks) Will you state your name please?
A Mabel Miller Austin.

O Mrs. Austin?
A That is correct.

Q  What is your residence, Mrs. Austin?
A Route 1, Hillsborough.



Q  What was your occupation in September 1965?
A I was receptionist, records clerk, and invoice clerk for 
Cone Mills Corporation Eno Plant.

O Where is that plant located?
A Hillsborough, North Carolina.

Q  How long did you serve in that capacity, as of Sep­
tember 1965?
A About twelve years.

5?e sjE 3§s

(91) Q  Now would you state the nature of your duties 
as receptionist in the summer and early fall of 1965 as they 
relate to persons who might seek employment at the Eno 
Plant?
A Yes, sir. I would greet them and hand them an appli­
cation, at which time I would ask them to fill it out on 
the front and the back and sign it. After they had done so, 
of course, I would ask Mr. King to interview them. Of 
course, I do look at the application to see if they have 
filled out most of the information and signed it.

* * *

(93) Q  What steps, if any, does the Eno Plant take to 
secure new employees? I am speaking particularly in 
reference to the year 1965.
A With the number of applications that we have, we don’t 
have to take any steps.

O Do I understand from that that you have a sufficient 
number of applications on hand that you go to when you 
need a job filled?
A Yes, sir.

# # #

(94) Q  Does the Eno Plant, and with particular refer­



98

ence to the year 1965, accept applications and interview 
applicants even though there is no job opening available 
at the time?
A Yes, sir.

$ # #

0  Do you have any responsibility for passing on the 
qualifications of an applicant?
A No, sir.

Q  Do you have any responsibility in connection with the 
employment of people at the Eno Plant?
(95) A  No, sir.

# $ *

Q  Do you remember any Negro females coming to the 
Eno office in June 1965 and seeking employment?
A Well, I would like to state here that in my deposition
1 said I couldn’t be sure; but since going through our 
applications, of course, I have found some.

Q  Did those persons who sought employment receive a 
form from the company?
A Yes, sir.

Q  Did any Negro females apply for a position at the 
Eno Plant prior to 1965?
A No, sir, not that we can find any applications on.

Q  Do you know any of the three plaintiffs in this case,
(96) Mrs. Lea, Mrs. Pinnix, and Mrs. Tinnin?
A No, sir.

Q  Do you recall any of the three ladies that I just men­
tioned coming to the Eno office in June or July or August 
of 1965 to seek employment?
A No, sir.



99

Q  To your knowledge, were any persons who sought 
sought employment at the Eno Plant in the summer of 
1965 refused an application form?
A Yes, sir.

Q  Who would that have been?
A That was all applicants for a short period of time, 
perhaps a week or ten days.

Q  At what time would that have been?
A It was sometime after school was out.

Q  What month or months are you speaking of?
A Well, it was perhaps in June, because we had quite a 
number of applicants at one time and we were not able to 
even get our work done that needed to be done, we were 
having so many applications.

>JC #

(98) Q  Now except for this period that you have just 
described, did you individually ever refuse to let any per­
son who applied for a job at the Eno Plant fill out an 
application form?
A No, sir.

Q  Do you recall some Negro females coming to the Eno 
office in September 1965 to apply for a job?
A I do.

Q  Do you remember what date that was?
A September 2, 1965.

Q  What time of day did they come?
A They came immediately after lunch.

Q  How many applied for employment at that time?
A There were ten.



100

Q  Were the three plaintiffs in this case included in this 
group of ten?
A Yes, sir.

Q  What happened on that occasion?
A I gave each one of them an application and asked that 
they fill it out on the front and the back and sign it, after
(99) which time I asked Mr. King to interview them, and 
they were permitted to go to his office two at a time since 
they were together.

Q  I take it that they did fill out the application forms? 
A Yes, sir.

* * *

(100) Q  Was one of the ten subsequently employed at 
the Eno Plant, subsequent to September 2nd? Was one 
of these ten persons who applied for a job on September 
2nd subsequently hired by the Eno Plant?
A  Yes, sir.

Q  Do you remember the name of that person?
A Well, at the time she applied she was Laurie Jean 
Battle. At the time she was hired she was Laurie Jean 
Battle Mebane.

# # ❖

(102) Q  Do you know whether you had Negro females 
employed at the Eno Plant prior to July 2, 1965?
A We did not.

O Do you know whether prior to July 2, 1965, whether 
you had Negro males employed at the Eno Plant?
A We did.

* # *

(3 04) Q  Focusing on September 3, 1965, Mrs. Austin,



1 0 1

do you recall a person by the name of Carolyn Wagner 
who applied for employment at the Eno Plant?
A I do.

O Do you know whether she’s a Negro or white?
A She’s white.

Q  Do you know whether she filled out an application? 
A  She did.

Q  Do you know if she was subsequently employed?
A Yes.

Q  Do you know the date on which she was employed?
A The same day.

Q  She applied on 9 /3  and was employed on 9/3, is that 
correct?
A That’s right.

THE COU RT: What was that name?

MR. BELTON: Carolyn Wagner, W-a-g-n-e-r.

O (By Mr. Belton) And for what position did she apply? 
A  Well now, I wouldn’t recall what position she applied
for.

(105) Q  Do you recall what position she was hired for—  
A Yes.

Q  — what position that was?
A Yes.

Q  What position was that?
A Battery filler.

THE CO U RT: What?

THE WITNESS: Battery filler, b-a-t-t-e-r-y.

Q  (By Mr. Belton) Do you know if she’s still employed 
at the Eno Plant?



1 0 2

A No, she’s not.
Q  Do you know how long she stayed at the Eno Plant? 
A I don’t remember.

Q. Was it more than two months; do you recall?
A I don’t remember.
Q  Do you recall, Mrs. Austin, whether you received ap­
plications from Negro females between the period of, say, 
January 1, 1965, and June 1965?
A Well, after going through our applications, of course, 
I found that we did.

# £ >!<

(106) O TTO  KING

was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant and, 
being first duly sworn, was examined and testified on his 
oath as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) State your name, please.
A Otto King.

Q  Where do you reside, Mr. King?
A Hillsborough, North Carolina.

Q  By whom are you employed?
A Cone Mills Corporation, Eno Plant, Hillsborough.

Q  What position do you hold with the Eno Plant?
A I am personnel manager and office manager.

Q  How long have you held that position?
A I have been personnel manager for approximately 
eleven years. For about five years prior to that I was office 
manager, and about five years prior to that I was a clerk 
in the office.



103

# # *

(107) Q  (By Mr. Brooks) What are your duties as 
personnel manager, with particular reference to the year 
1965?
A M y duties were to interview applicants and talk to 
them in connection with the possibilities of employment 
with my company. It was also my responsibility, when an 
employee was needed, to recruit from our applications a 
suitable person to fill the job which was vacant, one with 
experience if possible; if not, then I would have to select 
someone to train.

Q  Who fixes general personnel policies that are applicable 
to the Eno Plant?
A Our corporation here in Greensboro; our policy is 
determined by the corporation.

* ❖  #

Q  There has been offered into evidence Defendant’s Ex­
hibit 1 and Defendant’s Exhibit 2. I would ask if you 
would identify and describe those documents.

# # #

(108) A (Continuing) This is two sheets from our cor­
porate policy manual, dated April 1, 1963, setting forth 
the corporation policy so far as employing employees, 
hiring employees.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Was that policy sent to you or handed 
to you at the Eno Plant?
A  This original policy would have been delivered to me 
in person at a personnel managers meeting here in Greens­
boro. As the policy is revised, the revised sheets are mailed 
to us at the plant and are substituted for the old one.



Q  And were you directed to follow the personnel policies 
that are set forth in Defendant’s Exhibit 1?
A Yes, sir.
Q  Now I show you a document marked Defendant’s 
Exhibit 2, and ask if you would describe what that docu­
ment is.
A This is a revision of company policy in one area only; it 
replaces Exhibit 1. It was mailed to me with instructions 
to follow this policy. And the only change in the policy 
is that instead of limiting discrimination to race, creed, 
and color, it adds sex, as well as national origin. The date 
of this is June 1, 1965.

Q  And do I understand that the only change in Defen­
dant’s (109) Exhibit 2 as contrasted with Defendant’s 
Exhibit 1 is that in the sixth line from the top on Defen­
dant’s Exhibit 2, there has been added the word “ sex” ?
A That’s correct, sir.

O  What steps, Mr. King, are taken by the company to 
recruit new employees at the Eno Plant?
A To the present time we have never had to take any 
steps to recruit. Our recruitment consisted of receiving 
applications.

O What county is the Eno Plant located in?
A Orange County.

Q  Are there any other textile plants located in Orange 
County now, or in 1965?
A There was a small plant there in ’65 that was not 
operating to any great extent. At the present time we have 
a new company that has moved in; of course, we don’t 
know where they are going. But in 1965 ours was about 
the only mill, textile plant, in that area which was employ­
ing any people to speak of.



Q  Now would you describe to the Court the procedure 
followed at the Eno Plant in the summer and fall of 1965 
when an applicant comes to the plant for a job?

A Mrs. Austin, the receptionist, would give the applicant
(110) an application and a pencil and ask them to answer 
the questions on the front and the back and to sign it. 
When this had been done, she would either bring them to 
my office or give them the application and point the way 
to my office; and they would come in for an interview, at 
which time we would go over the application, the answers 
they had given to the questions and, if any of them were 
incomplete, I would ask them about it. I would ask them 
about their relatives that they might have in our plant. 
Their past experience would be gone into and various other 
questions that might give me some idea as to what kind of 
an employee they would make.

* * *

(111) Q  I believe you testified as to some of the factors 
or type of information that you develop in these interviews. 
Would you give all the factors that you consider when you 
are interviewing an applicant?

A Well, first of all would be past experience in the textile 
business. Secondly would be experience in related industries, 
something similar to textiles. And I think the next thing 
I would be looking for would be someone who had a rela­
tive in the plant, to make it possible for me to get a first­
hand reference on them. And next I guess would be a close 
friend in the plant.

* * *

O Is the race or sex of an applicant a factor that is
(112) considered when you are interviewing an appli­
cant?



106

A  Not race. The sex does enter into it to the extent that 
we think some of our jobs are not suitable for ladies.

* * *

Q  What happens to an application form of a particular 
person if that person is not granted a job?
A Well, the application remains on my desk until I ac­
cumulate a number of applications, more than I want to 
handle on my desk. And the way I do that, I put the last 
application that I receive on the top, in the front of the 
file; and when I accumulate a stack of applications, then 
I remove the older ones, maybe the ones that are older 
than a month, and file them alphabetically. The reason I 
do this, when a person comes in and renews an application,
I pull that application from the file and put the date of 
its renewal on the application.
Q  Do applicants come back and renew their application or 
ask what has happened to it? What is the practice, if any,
(113) with regard to that?
A Most of the time they do. Actually I think if anyone 
is really interested in a job, they’re going to be—

MR. CHAMBERS: Objection to that, Your Honor.

THE COU RT: Well, just answer his question, 
rather than—

THE WITNESS: All right. We expect it. May I 
say it that way?

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Does the company normally hire an 
applicant on the same day that he or she applies for a job? 
A Only if they are an experienced person in a particular 
job that happens to be open that day and we have no one 
with an older application that has that experience. If we 
needed a weaver, for instance, and we had no qualified 
weavers’ applications in the plant, in the office, and a



107

qualified weaver came by, put in her application, and 
everything checked out all right, chances are she would 
be put to work that day.
Q  I believe Mrs. Austin testified a few minutes ago on 
cross examination concerning a Mrs. Wagner being em­
ployed. Are you familiar with her employment?
A Yes, sir, I remember the case.
0  I believe the testimony was that she applied on one day 
and was employed on the same day; is that correct?
A She was. She was a battery filler. She had been work­
ing at the plant across the railroad tracks from us, and
(114) we needed a battery filler that day and she was 
available, and she put in her application and she was hired.

Q  Is the battery filler job a skilled job?
A We consider it so.
Q  Did any Negro female person apply for a job at the 
Eno Plant prior to 1965 to your knowledge?
A Not to my knowledge or according to our records.

Q  Were application forms given to all applicants for jobs 
at the Eno Plant during 1965?

M R. CHAMBERS: Objection unless he knows.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Well, to your knowledge, were they?

THE CO U RT: Ask that question again.

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) To your knowledge, Mr. King, were 
application forms given to all applicants for jobs at the 
Eno Plant during 1965?
A  Except for a short period of time, about a week or ten 
days, at which time we had a sign on the door that we were 
not receiving applications from anyone. This was brought 
about by the work load in the office and the influx of 
applications sometime early in the summer.



108

* * #

(115) Q  Did you ever advise anyone, including any of 
these three persons, that the Eno Plant did not employ 
Negro females?
A No, sir. I never advised that we didn’t employ Negro 
females. If they had asked me on September 2nd if we had 
any Negro females employed, I would have said no. I 
don’t remember whether they asked me that or not, but 
if they had I would have said no.

O Did you ever tell any of the three plaintiffs or anyone 
else that the Eno Plant did not hire Negroes, male or 
female?
A No, sir.

# * *

(117) Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Mr. King, do you remember 
these three plaintiffs, Mrs. Tinnin, Mrs. Pinnix, and Mrs. 
Lea, applying (118) for employment at the Eno Plant on 
September 2, 1965?
A I remember the names, yes.

Q  Do you remember interviewing them on that day?
A Yes, sir. I ’m sure that I remember.

Q  Had you ever seen either of the three plaintiffs before 
September 1965?
A Not to my knowledge.

O Were there other female Negroes who were interviewed 
by you on September 2nd at or about the same time that 
you interviewed these plaintiffs?
A Yes, sir.

O How many?
A There were ten in the group, so that would have been 
seven more, I believe.



109

Q  What happened on that date with regard to your inter­
view with these plaintiffs?
A Mrs. Austin brought the first two back —  I don’t 
remember who came back first —  brought them to my 
office and gave me their applications, and I followed my 
usual procedure. I went over the applications and talked 
to them about their previous work experience and about 
any possible relatives they might have in the plant or even 
in town probably that I might know, and the usual thing 
that I go over with an applicant. And at that time we had 
no opening in the plant for inexperienced help at all. I 
explained this to them and (119) told them that if such 
an opening occurred, that their applications would be given 
consideration towards employment; and they left.

* # *

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Did you state to any of the three or 
to any of the other applicants on that date that the Eno 
Plant did not employ Negro females?

A No, sir, not in those words. If they asked me if we had 
any Negro females employed, I would have said no. I 
don’t know that they asked me.

# # *

(120) Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Mr. King, on September 2, 
1965, when you conducted your interview of these three 
plaintiffs in this case and when you told them what you 
have testified that you did tell them, did you carry out the 
policy of the Cone Mills Corporation as set forth in De­
fendant’s Exhibit 1?

A I think I did, sir.



110

M R. BROOKS: No further questions.
CROSS EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Belton) Mr. King, what is your procedure in 
filling vacancies from applications that you have on hand? 
A Normally the overseer would ask for a person ex­
perienced in the kind of work that he needs someone in, 
for instance, a battery filler. He would call me up and ask 
me to get a battery filler for him. Well, when I get that 
request, I would go through the applications that I had on 
my desk, the most recent ones, searching for someone with
(121) battery-filling experience; and if I found one, then 
I would call that person back in and talk to them again, 
check their references. I would have the overseer talk to 
them. And if we thought they were qualified, we would 
put them on the job.

Q  Now do you contact such a person by telephone or 
by letter?
A By telephone if they have a telephone number that I 
can reach them with. If not, I send a card.

Q  Now that was the procedure, you say, if you had an 
experienced person’s application; you would call the person? 
A Right.

Q  What would be the procedure if you did not have an
experienced person in the list of applications?
A And I was looking for someone to train, say, as a 
battery filler?

Q  That’s right.
A Well, the first consideration I would give as I went 
through the applications, not having an experienced person, 
would be the related experience. Maybe they hadn’t worked 
in a cotton mill or textile mill, but they had worked in a 
hosiery mill or some related industry; then for this reason 
they might be easier to train. And secondly, I would look



I l l

for someone who had a relative working for us at the present 
time, which we think is one of the very best references that 
we can get on a person. If we have a person working for us
(122) for a number of years, they are a good and loyal 
and faithful employee, they work regular, and they have a 
niece or nephew that wants a job, we think they will make 
a good employee. So we will take that as the next con­
sideration.

Q  So the second consideration outside of experience is 
a relative in the company?
A Right.

Q  If you come across an application of a person who does 
have experience or who does have a relative with the com­
pany, the Eno Plant in particular, who does not have a 
telephone listed on the application, would you attempt to 
contact such a person?
A Yes. There is a place on there that they give references. 
It’s possible that we could contact them through their 
reference, and we have dropped them a card, if they met 
all the other points that we were looking for in a person. 
In other words—  I believe your question was if they had 
not had experience and did not have a relative?

Q  M y question, my last question, is how do you com­
municate with a person that you want for a position if he
does not have a telephone.
A Oh, I see what you mean. Well, it’s entirely possible 
that he has listed a relative or a friend who works in the 
plant. If so, we go see this party he has listed as a rela­
tive or a friend; and it is also possible that he has
(123) given someone that does not work for us as a 
reference that we can call on and get a message to him.

Q  Do you ever communicate with the applicants for



112

employment when you are considering them for a vacancy 
by a letter?
A We have mailed postal cards. We have never written 
a letter.
Q  You have mailed postal cards?
A Yes, we have.

# # ❖

(131) Q  Let me ask you a question: Do you recall 
whether there were any vacancies on September 2, 1965? 
A I ’m sure there wasn’t, because I wouldn’t have told them 
there wasn’t if there had been vacancies.

O Now when did you learn of the vacancy which was filled 
by Mrs. Carolyn Wagner on September 3, 1965?
A The morning of the 3rd.

# # #

(132) THE COU RT: Let me ask you a question or two.
If you know that you had no female Negro em­

ployees among your some hundred female employees 
before 1966, do you know why that came about, that 
they were all white females and no Negro females, 
completely?

THE WITNESS: To the best of my knowledge, we 
never had a Negro female apply for a job until 1965, 
and we didn’t solicit employees, so I would say that 
was the reason. We went back into our 1964 file on 
applications, and we couldn’t identify any of them 
as being Negro females. O f course, we don’t have a 
place on the application for race. We were having to 
look based on the schools, which at that time were 
predominantly white or colored, and for their friends 
and relatives they may have listed. And we couldn’t 
find a single one in 1964.



113

THE CO U RT: You don’t have any independent 
memory, do you, eleven years there, of a Negro female 
applying for employment at the Eno Plant before 1965?

THE WITNESS: I certainly don’t, Your Honor.
(133) If one did, I certainly don’t remember it. I don’t 

think there was one. I don’t know why.
# # #

(134) THE CO U RT: Well, other than that, how far is 
it from your Eno Plant to another plant that is com­
petitive, that is, doing the same general type of textile 
work you are doing? I ’m not sure what you are doing 
at Eno, whether you’re weaving cloth or what you’re 
doing.

THE WITNESS: W e’re weaving cloth.

THE COU RT: But carrying on that same type of 
operation that you could draw from experienced em­
ployees in your type of operation. How far away is the 
nearest?

THE WITNESS: We are twelve miles from Durham
(135) where Erwin Cotton Mills is, one of Burlington 

Industries’ big plants; and we’re about fourteen miles 
from the Cone Mills plant in Haw River. And in 
Mebane they have a yarn mill which processes yarn up 
to weaving; they don’t do any weaving.

THE COU RT: So it’s about twelve miles?

THE WITNESS About twelve miles.

THE COU RT: Do most of your employees come 
within that twelve-mile radius?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. Ours is an old family 
plant. We have father and mother and sons and daugh­
ters alike working in our plant. It’s always been that



114

way, living in and around Hillsborough. We have some 
from out of Hillsborough.

* * *

(137) Q  (By Mr. Belton) Do you know how long the 
Eno Plant has been in operation?
A All I know is the history of it. According to our records, 
it was started in 1896. I don’t know how big it was in 
1896 or how fast it grew. Tradition has it was started in 
1896.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXH IBIT 12

(2) Deposition of SHIRLEY ANN LEA, taken by the 
Defendant for the purpose of discovery and for use as 
evidence in the above-entitled cause, wherein SHIRLEY 
LEA, RO M O N A PIN N IX and ANNIE PENXIX are the 
Plaintiffs and CONE MILLS CORPORATION , a cor­
poration, is the Defendant, pending in the United States 
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina; Dur­
ham Division, pursuant to notice, before CHESTER L. 
HOLLIFIELD, a Notary Public in and for the County of 
Guilford, State of North Carolina, in the United States 
Court Room, Federal Building, Greensboro, North Caro­
lina, on the 20th day of October, 1966, commencing at 
5:00 o’clock P. M.

* # *

MR. BROOKS: This is the taking of the depositions 
by the defendant of the plaintiffs in this action pursuant 
to attached copy of notice. Mr. Chambers, I under­
stand from your statement prior to the opening depo­
sition that each witness desires to sign the (3) deposi­
tion before they are filed with the Court?

MR. CHAMBERS: That is true.



115

* # #

SHIRLEY ANN LEA

a witness called pursuant to notice, being first duly sworn 
in the above cause, was examined and testified on her oath 
as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Will you give your name, please?
A Shirley Ann Lea.

$ # #

(8) Q  Now when you went on September 2, 1965, and 
filled out your application, Defendant’s Exhibit Number 8, 
who did you talk with about getting a job at the plant?
A Who did I—  Who interviewed me?

Q  Yes.
A Mr. King.

Q  And did he tell you that there were no openings?
A Yes.

Q  Did he tell you that the application forms were being 
kept on file and if they had openings, they would call you? 
A No, not exactly.

Q  Well, as best as you can remember, what did he say in 
that connection?
A He said my application would be kept on file, and if 
they have an opening, he would contact me.

# * *

(12) Q  After you had finished filing your application for 
a job at the Eno Plant, Defendant’s Exhibit 8, what did 
you do?
A  I believe we went to the Courthouse.



116

Q  This Defendant’s Exhibit 10, the complaint, was dated 
September the 2nd, which is the same date that you visited 
the Cone Mills Plant?
A Yes.
Q  Now was this signed before or after you went to the 
Cone Mills Plant?
A That couldn’t have been signed before I went.

Q  All right now, where did you sign it?
A I signed it at the church.

Q  At the church?
A Yes.

O  And why did you go back to sign it at the church?
A Because that’s where they were.

* * $

(15) Q At the time you applied for the job at the Eno 
Plant on September 2, 1965, what kind of employment did 
you hold at that time?
A At that particular time?

O Yes.
A I wasn’ t holding no kind of employment.

(16) Q Have you been employed since September, 1965,
by anyone?
A Yes.

Q  When did you gain employment?
A Let me see. When?

Q  W ell, approximately.
A I believe it was in October— sometime in October. I 
don’t know.

O Of last year? Of 1965?
A Yes.



117

Q With what concern did you get employment?
A I haven’t finished. And I obtained a job, and let me 
see— .ism trying to think of the month, but I can’t think of 
the month— but at the Colonial Stores.

Q Who did you go to work for in October of last year 
when you got your job?
A Burlington Industries.

O And how long did you stay with them?
A I ’m still with them.
Q  So you have been employed by Burlington Industries 
since about October of last year?
A Since October.
O Why did you seek the job September 2nd from Cone 
Mills? ’
A Because I want to work.

Q  Had you ever worked in a textile mill before?
A No.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXH IBIT 13

(2) Deposition of ROM ON A PINNIX, taken by the 
Defendant for the purpose of discovery and for use as 
evidence in the above-entitled cause, wherein SHIRLEY 
LEA, RO M O N A PIN N IX and ANNIE TIN N IN  are the 
Plaintiffs and CONE M ILLS CORPORATION , a cor­
poration, is the Defendant, pending in the United States 
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Dur­
ham Division, pursuant to notice, before CHESTER L. 
HOLLIFIELD, a Notary Public in and for the County of 
Guilford, State of North Carolina, in the United States 
Court Room, Federal Building, Greensboro, North Caro­
lina, on the 20th day of October, 1966, commencing at 
2:30 o’clock P. M.



118

* $ *

(3) R O M O N A PIN N IX

a witness called pursuant to notice, being first duly sworn 
in the above cause, was examined and testified on her oath 
as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Will you state your name, please?
A Romona Pinnix.

* * *

(4) Q  Did anyone else apply with you for a job at the 
Eno Plant on the same date?
A Yes.

Q  Who else applied?
A Mrs. Shirley Lea, Mrs. Annie Tinnin, Mrs. Lizza Brad­
shaw, Mrs. Ida Fuller, Mrs. Magdalene Bradshaw.

Q  Did Inise Corbett and Laura Jean Battle and Caroline 
Corbett and Annie Torain also apply for employment at 
the Eno Plant on the same day with you?
A That’s right; for secretarial positions.

* ❖  #

(5) Q  Did you go to any other plants on that day before 
you came to the Eno Plant?
A I think we went to that one downtown at Hillsboro.
Q  I didn’t understand.
A Hillsboro Mill— I don’t know what they call it— they 
call it the Hillsboro Mill.

Q  The four people in your automobile went to another 
plant in Hillsboro before you came to the Cone Mills Plant? 
A That’s right.



119

Q  And did you there apply for a job?
A Yes.

(6) Q  Did you receive a job at that plant?
A They didn’t have any openings.

Q  Did you subsequently bring a law suit against that 
other company because you did not get a job there?
A I don’t know; I don’t remember.

Q  You don’t remember whether you did or did not, is 
that your answer?
A No; I don’t think I brought one against them.

# £ #

Q  Do you remember going to Dixie Yarn Mills in Mebane 
on September 2nd, and there applying for a job?
(7) A Yes, I went there.

Q  With the same three ladies that you have just testi- 
field that you went to the Eno Plant with?
A Yes.

Q  Now, were you given a job when you applied at the 
Dixie Yarn Mills?
A No.

O Did you file any complaint against them?
A Yes.

Q  Have you brought any suit against them?
A No, I didn’t bring no suit against them.

Q  Now, did you also apply on the same day for a job at 
the Southland Dyeing and Finishing Company in Mebane? 
A  Yes, I did.

Q  And were you with the same three people that you have 
just testified about?
A Yes.



1 2 0

Q  Were you given a job at that plant?
A No; we just put in an application.

O Did you file a complaint against them?
A No, I don’t think so.

# # *

(10) Q  (By Mr. Brooks) What did Mr. King, the Per­
sonnel Director, say to you after you came into the inter­
view with him and he was given the application form?
A I don’t remember all the exact words, but he told us 
he didn’t have any openings— that all the employees he had 
had been there fifteen to twenty years.

O Did he state that all the employees, or that some of 
the employees?
A He said, all the employees he had had been with him 
fifteen to twenty years.

Q Did he state that there were no vacancies at the time? 
A He said he had never hired no colored women to do no 
industrial work.

O  He stated that?
A That’s what he talked like.

# # *

(12) Q  Plow did you happen to go to the Eno Plant of 
Cone Mills for a job on September 2, 1965?
A Well, at the Agricultural Building, the home agent had 
told us they had added a new department there to this 
mill. They were building on it, and they were going to hire 
some people, and so we went.

O Who was that that told you?
A The home demonstration agent at Hillsboro.

Q  W ell, why did you happen to go on that day, and before



1 2 1

you came to the Eno Plant, to the these other places in 
Mebane?
A Well, as I stated on here on my application, I was a farm 
wife, and after farming season closed there’s nothing else
(13) we can do but try to find public work.

O M y question was: Why did you go to the two places in 
Mebane and to the place in Haw River on the morning of 
September the 2nd and seek employment at those places?
A I was trying to find employment.

# # *

(15) O So that means that you filled out this complaint, 
Defendant’s Exhibit 2, on the same day that you applied 
for employment at the Eno Plant; is that correct?
A That’s right.
Q  Now my question is: Did you fill out this Defendant’s 
Exhibit Number 2 before or after you went to the Eno 
Plant?
A I filled it out after I went to the Eno Plant.

O And where did you fill it out?
A I think it was at Gaines Chapel Church in Efland.

Q  At where?
A Gaines Chapel Church at Efland, North Carolina.

Q  Who prepared the material that is contained in this 
document for you?
A Wrote this in here?

Q  Yes.
A I don’t know.

O You don’t remember?
A No.
Q  Did someone tell you to come to the church and sign 
the document on that day?



1 2 2

A  Yes.

(16) Q  Who was it that told you?
A  Reverend Felder.

* # *

Q  Before you had started out that morning, you had left 
the church?
A  Yes.

Q  And had agreed to come back to the church after you 
had applied for a job at these places?
A Yes.

Q  And were you told to come back there and that some 
complaints would be drawn up and filed?
A Yes.

Q  Were you furnished a copy of this complaint after you 
signed it?
(17) A  No, I don’t think so.

Q  What did you do with it after you signed it?
A I left them there at the church.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXH IBIT 14

(2) Deposition of ANNIE BELLE TINNIN, taken by 
the Defendant for the purpose of discovery and for use as 
evidence in the above-entitled cause, wherein SHIRLEY 
LEA, RO M O N A PIN N IX and ANNIE TINNIN are the 
Plaintiffs and CONE M ILLS CORPORATION , a cor­
poration, is the Defendant, pending in the United States 
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Dur­
ham Division, pursuant to notice, before CHESTER L. 
HOLLIFIELD, a Notary Public in and for the County of 
Guilford, State of North Carolina, in the United States 
Court Room, Federal Building, Greensboro, North Caro­



123

lina, on the 20th day of October, 1966, commencing at 
4:00 o ’clock P. M.

* * #

(3) ANNIE BELLE TINNIN

a witness called pursuant to notice, being first duly sworn 
in the above cause, was examined and testified on her oath 
as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Will you state your full name, please? 
A Mrs. Annie Belle Tinnin.

# * *

(4) Q  (By Mr. Brooks) I hand you a document, De­
fendant’s Exhibit 5, and ask you if that’s the application 
form that you filled out at the Eno Plant in September, 
1965?
A Yes.

* # *

O And who instructed you to go to these places to get a
job— apply for a job?
A  Reverend Felder.

* # *

(5) Q  You think it was? What was the reason given 
by the company as to why you did not receive a job on 
the day you applied at Eno?
A Well, they said they wasn’t hiring any more. They 
didn’t have no openings at that time.

Q  Was there anything else said that you remember?
A  Well, he said that all these employees that he had there 
at the mill at that time had been there a period of fifteen 
to twenty years, so he didn’t need anyone at that time.



124

Q  And do you remember anything else he said:’
A  No.

* # #

(6) Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Mrs. Tinnin, I hand you a docu­
ment which your counsel has furnished me marked De­
fendant’s Exhibit 6 which is a one-page document ad­
dressed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis­
sion, with a heading “ Complaint of Unfair Employment 
Practices Under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title V II,” 
and ask if you signed that document as there indicated? 
A  Yes.
Q  Where did you sign this document— at the church?
A  Yes.

Q  Who furnished it to you?
A Reverend Felder.

# # ❖

(7) Q  Now, in this document, Defendant’s Exhibit 6, 
it is stated that when you went to the above-named mill 
on the above date and applied for a job as an industrial 
trainee, you were informed by a young lady that there 
were no openings and wasn’t taking any applications; is 
that a correct statement?
A Yes.

* $ *

(11) Q  (By Mr. Brooks) Mrs. Tinnin, do you know 
Conrad O. Pearson?
A No.

O Do you know W. G. Pearson? Is your answer no?
A No.

O Do you know Jack Greenberg?
A No.



Q  Do you know LeRoy D. Clark?
(12) A No.

Q  Do you know J. LeVonne Chambers?
A Yes.

O What is your answer?
A  No.

Q  You don’t know him? Now did you ever authorize or 
instruct any lawyers to bring this law suit in the United 
States District Court on your behalf against Cone Mills 
Corporation?
A No.

Q Your answer is no? I can’t hear you ma’am.
A Ask the question again.

Q Did you ever authorize Conrad O. Pearson, J. LeVonne 
Chambers, W. G. Pearson, Jack Greenberg, or LeRoy D. 
Clark to bring a law suit on your behalf in the United 
States District Court for the Middle District of North 
Carolina against Cone Mills Corporation?
A No.

❖  # #

(14) Q  And did you on that day also go to these plants 
in— another plant in Hillsboro?
A  Yes.

Q  Did you go to some plants in Mebane?

M R. CHAMBERS: We enter an objection to that 
and instruct the witness not to answer that question.

* * *

(15) CROSS EXAM IN ATION



126

(19) Q  Did you go anywhere else besides Cone Mills? 
A Yes, on that particular day.

*  *  *

(20) REDIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N
# # #

(20) Q  Now, this document that you read out, into the 
record, entitled “ Retainer” —  Nowhere in that document 
does the name of any attorney appear, does it?
A  No.

Q  Was this document that you read into the record 
brought to your home for signature?
A  Yes.

* # *

RECROSS EXAM IN ATIO N
# # ❖

(22) Q  Do you know why you were signing this docu­
ment here?
A No.

* # #

(28) Q  (By Mr. Chambers) Mrs. Tinnin, did you know 
that a law suit would be filed in Federal Court trying to 
help you get a job?
A Yes.

Q  How did you know it?
A  Well—

Q  You’ll have to talk a little louder, so the Reporter can 
hear you.
A I think it was in one of the letters I got. I ’m not sure. 

Q  In a letter you received? Did you know what lawyers



127

were going to file the law suit for you?
A Yes, I remember some of their names.

Q  You remember what?
A The names when I hear them.

Q  If you heard them?
A But I don’t remember them.

Q  Now you stated a moment ago you didn’t know me. 
A Well, I didn’t remember you.

Q  What?
A I remembered your name. I stated that I remembered 
your name, that I thought I had seen you before.

* * *

(29) REDIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Brooks) In answer to the questions that Mr. 
Chambers asked you a little bit ago, I understood you to 
say that on the morning of September the 2nd of last year, 
which was the day that you went to the Eno Plant to get 
a job, that you walked from your home to the church where 
you were picked up. Is that correct?
A Yes.

Q  Are you a member of Mr. Felder’s church?
A That’s not Mr. Felder’s church.

Q  I see. Well, are you a member of that church?
A No.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 15

(3) Deposition of O TTO  A. KING, taken by the Plain­
tiffs for the purpose of discovery and for use as evidence 
in the above-entitled cause, wherein SHIRLEY LEA,



1 2 8

RO M O N A PINNIX, and ANNIE TINNIN are the 
Plaintiffs and CONE M ILLS CORPORATION , a Cor­
poration is the Defendant, pending in the United States 
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Dur­
ham Division, pursuant to notice, before H ARRY R. 
LACKEY, a Notary Public in and for the County of 
Guilford, State of North Carolina, in Room 318, Federal 
Building, Greensboro, North Carolina, on the 11th day of 
May, 1967, commencing at 2:15 o’clock P. M.

* * #

(4) O TTO  A. KING

a witness called pursuant to notice, being first duly sworn 
in the above cause, was examined and testified on his oath 
as follows:

DIRECT EXAM IN ATIO N

Q  (By Mr. Chambers) State your name, please.
A I ’m Otto King.

❖  ❖  #

(9) Q  What happens to an application after it’s passed 
on to (10) you?
A  Well, of course, the first thing I interview the appli­
cant; we’ve covered that. And then I keep the applications 
in a stack in my office. And as they come in I add to the 
top of the stack. Now these applications are supposed to be 
renewed as often as every two weeks to let me know that 
the applicant is still interested in a job. As these applica­
tions are renewed, they are moved to the top of the stack.

Q  Is there a notation made on the application where one 
renews it?
A Yes, there is, the date.



129

Q  The date of renewal is indicated on the application?
A Right.
Q  Now what happens in case one does not renew an 
application?
A It stays on the bottom of the stack.

Q  It’s still in the same stack, however?
A Yes.
Q  Now do you have a file where you keep these appli­
cations?
A Yes, I do. Now they stay on the bottom of the stack 
for a period of time, and then they’re filed alphabetically 
and are pulled out and put on top of the stack, if they are 
renewed. We have no definite period that we keep them on 
our desk after the two-week period is up; but they are 
available in an alphabetical file.

* # #
Q  What factor does residence play in the consideration 
of an applicant for employment?
A Not too much. We do take into consideration that a 
person living in close proximity to the plant would have less 
difficulty in working regularly and getting to the plant on 
time, and so forth, but it dooesn’t play a great deal in it.

* $ *
(17) Q  Prior to 1965, to your knowledge, had the com­
pany employed any Negro female?
(18) A Prior to what date again?

Q  To 1965.
A Prior to 1965?

Q  Yes.
A  As far as I know, they had not.

Q  The company had employed white females?
A  Right,
r



130

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT 16

(3) Deposition of MABEL M ILLER AUSTIN, taken 
by the Plaintiffs for the purpose of discovery and for use 
as evidence in the above-entitled cause, wherein SHIRLEY 
LEA, R O M O N A  PINNIX, and ANNIE TINNIN are the 
Plaintiffs and CONE M ILLS CORPORATION , a Cor­
poration, is the Defendant, pending in the United States 
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Dur­
ham Division, pursuant to notice, before H ARRY R. 
LACKEY, a Notary Public in and for the County of 
Guilford, State of North Carolina, in Room 318, Federal 
Building, Greensboro, North Carolina, on the 11th day of 
May, 1967, commencing at 10:00 o’clock A. M.

# ❖  #

(22) Q  Now, Mrs. Austin, you’ve been at the plant for 
14 years; when was the first time that, to your knowledge, 
a Negro lady was employed by the company?
A October of 1965.

Q  Do you know the name of that employee?
A I do.

Q  Would you state what that name is?
A Frances Villines.

Q  Now how many Negro females do you have employed 
at the company as of today?
A May I have time to count them?

Q  Yes.
A It is either six or seven.

3*C *  *

(24) Q  Do you know the job title of these six or seven 
Negro females that you have employed now?
A One of them is a weaver, if I ’m correct; one of them



131

I think is learning to weave; two are battery fillers. And 
the two in the spinning department that I think of right 
now, to the best of my knowledge, are operating machinists.

ijc sje #

(25) Q  When you first went with the company, did you 
have any Negro men employed there?
A We did.

Q  Do you know how many Negro men you had employed? 
A  Well, I don’t know the exact number, but it would have 
been about 20 or 25, to the best of my knowledge.

PLAINTIFFS’ EXH IBIT 17

(3) Deposition of JOHN W. BAGWILL, taken by the 
Plaintiffs for the purpose of discovery and for use as 
evidence in the above-entitled cause, wherein SHIRLEY 
LEA, R O M O N A PINNIX, and ANNIE TINNIN are the 
Plaintiffs and CONE MILLS CORPORATION , a Cor­
poration, is the Defendant, pending in the United States 
District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Dur­
ham Division, pursuant to notice, before H ARRY R. 
LACKEY, a Notary Public in and for the County of 
Guilford, State of North Carolina, in Room 318, Federal 
Building, Greensboro, North Carolina, on the 11th day of 
May, 1967, commencing at 3:30 o ’clock P. M.

* * $

(15) Had you ever requested, or have you ever requested 
a review of the company’s hiring policies with reference to 
the number of Negro employees hired by the company?
A Yes.

Q  Have you ever requested this with reference to the Eno 
Plant in Hillsboro?
A Yes, sir.



132

Q  When was your first such request?
A I ’m not sure; I think probably, maybe in 1960, ’61; 
I ’m not sure.

Q  What disposition was made at that time?
A Of what, the report?

O Yes.
A Well, it was for my edification and, I hope, education.

(16) Q  At that time is it true that you had no Negro 
females employed at the Eno Plant?
A I don’t remember, but from previous testimony I gather 
it was.

Q  Did you recommend any specific steps at that time in 
order to employ some Negro females at the Eno Plant?
A Not specifically, no.

O Did you subsequent to that time make any such re­
quests?
A Yes, sir.

Q  When was the first time that you made such request? 
A Well, we— I guess inferentially, we made the first, not 
a request, but we stated in writing in 1963 that it was the 
policy of the corporation to select on the basis of com­
petency, potential competency, capacity to handle a job 
open, and potentiality to grow, without regard to race, 
color, creed, and so forth. This was in ’63, shortly before 
the Title V II of the Civil Rights Act became effective. I 
can’t remember now whether it became effective the 2nd 
of July or early June ’65, but it was sometime during the 
summer. We met with personnel managers, our managers, 
reviewed the provisions of the Act, the responsibilities of 
the corporation, our policy in regard to employment and 
upgrading of persons. This was probably a week or so before 
the Act went into effect, Title VII, that is.



133

O Now was it brought to your attention that as of that
(17) time when you met just prior to the effective date 
of the Act, that you had no Negro females employed at the 
Eno Plant?
A  Probably not. I was not so much interested in past 
history as I was in future developments.

Q  Now was it subsequently brought to your attention 
that some Negro females did apply for employment at the 
Eno Plant?
A Yes. I can’t recall, but I think there was a man from 
Washington, E.E.O.C. I can’t remember; I believe; I ’m 
not sure.

Q  You would not know whether some Negro females had 
applied for jobs prior to the date September 2, 1965?
A No, I would not.

Q Did your office take any steps after being notified 
that some complaints had been filed against the company 
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?
A Yes. ' J

Q Could you state what the company did in reference 
to that?
A The first thing we did was try to verify what would 
appear to be grounds for the complaint, made an investi­
gation somewhat the same as you suggested in your inter­
rogatories.

Q  Did you do anything else?
A Reminded people of our corporate policy and our re­
sponsibilities under the Act.

* ❖  *

(20) Q  Now you indicated subsequent to that time that 
you requested some action be taken with respect to the 
minority group employees; was that in reference to the 
promotion policies?



134

A  Prior to the meeting just before July 2, 1965, which—  
Was that the effective date of Title V II?

Q  That’s correct.
A Shortly before July 2, 1965, there was a meeting where 
very positive statements were made. Up to that time, as 
is true with a good many corporate policies, our role was 
a persuasive role.
Q  M y question was, subsequent to 1961 when you re­
quested the review, did you recommend changes with ref­
erence to the promotion of Negro or minority group 
employees?
A No, because I was not familiar with exactly what was 
going on in that area in each plant. We stated our corporate 
(21) policy in writing in 1963 which, in effect, was a 
recommendation, if you want to put it that way.

Q  Did you request this report subsequent to 1961 of the 
minority representation of the employees?
A I don’t remember. It seems to me that we did in some 
plants.
Q  To your knowledge, did you in the Eno Plant?
A I don’t think we did. I think we did in plants that were 
involved in Executive Order Number 10925.

# * #

(26) Q  Mr. Bagwill, could you explain the difference 
in the number of Negro women and the number of white 
women represented in the defendant’s answers to the inter­
rogatories?
A Yes. There’s a difference of 133, and I don’t mean to 
be facetious. It was testified to this morning I think very 
plainly that until sometime this fall of 1965 no Negro 
women (27) were employed at Eno. Prior to that, for I 
don’t know how many years, white women were employed. 
I think this is the explanation of it.



1