Memorandum on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Front of photograph

Collection
- Photograph Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- c7d4f10b-b554-ef11-a317-0022481d08e0

Cite this item

Press Releases, Volume 6. Memorandum on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 1975. b6240a14-bb92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/746dc686-4070-487d-af1c-b5c6316c3094/memorandum-on-albemarle-paper-co-v-moody. Accessed May 13, 2025.

Copied!

    April 11, 1975 

From: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

(212) 586-8397 

Contact: Mike Baller or Barry Goldstein 

MEMO TO NEWS EDITOR: NATIONAL NEWS DESK 

The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday 

(April 14) in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody. At that time, the high court 

will consider, for the first time, the question of appropriate remedies 

for employment discrimination. In particular, it will consider the remedy 

of back pay and standards for awarding back pay to black employees who have 

lost income because of discrimination. 

Though there have been other cases involving specific discriminatory 

practices, the court never before has considered this major aspect of 

employment suits brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

The question of back pay in employment discrimination will be 

reassessed, largely because the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fourth Circuit set, as a standard of law, that back pay should be awarded 

where discrimination is shown unless special circumstances would make such 

compensation unjust. 

The Legal Defense Fund is concerned about any issue relating to class 

back pay since compensation of this kind represents the only valid relief 

available for many black workers and the only practical deterrent confronting many 

employers. 

A second issue in the case deals with standards applied to the use of 

written employment tests which screen out and deprive blacks of jobs. At 

issue is the question: What must an employer do to show that such tests are 

job-related and therefore permissible? 

(more) 



RG] 

Legal Defense Fund lawyers believe Moody is the most important 

employment discrimination case since Griggs v. Duke Power Co. which held 

in 1971 that an employer cannot use a test that screens out black employees 

unless he can prove the test is manifestly job-related. 

Julius L. Chambers, the new president of the NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, will argue the case for the plaintiffs. The Legal Defense 

Fund is a completely separate organization, even though originally established 

by the NAACP in 1939. our correct designation is NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, Inc., frequently shortened to Legal Defense Fund. The 

organization has a national staff and headquarters in New York City, and 

works with 400 cooperating attorneys throughout the country.

Copyright notice

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

Additional info

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

Office Catlett Event - 5 of 13

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in