Rolfe v Lincoln County Board of Education Appendix for Appellants

    NO. 17,498.

IN THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT.

MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE and MRS. BERNICE L. PEEBLES, 
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

vs.
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LINCOLN COUNTY, 

TENNESSEE, etc., et al., 
Defendants-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Tennessee, Winchester Division.

APPENDIX FOR APPELLANTS.

ROBERT W. STEVENS,
STEVENS and BAGLEY,

Jarvis Building— East College Street, 
Fayetteville, Tennessee 37334, 

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants.

St . L ou is  L a w  F ein tin g  Co., I nc ., 415 N. Eighth Street. CEntral 1-4477.



TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX.

Page
Docket entries ..................................................................  la

Complaint ..........................................................................  7a

Motion for temporary restraining order and/or pre­
liminary injunction ....................................................... 21a

Order to show cause why temporary restraining order 
and/or preliminary injunction should not issue .. 22a

Answer to Motion for temporary restraining order 
and/or preliminary injunction and response to show 
cause order ....................................................................  23a

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY AND PRO­
CEEDINGS ON HEARING ON 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE.
Caption in the District Court .................................  26a

Appearances ..............................................................  27a

Proceedings ................................................................  27a

Plaintiffs’ Evidence.

Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe—
Direct examination ................................................... 30a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 42a
Redirect examination ............................................... 49a

Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles—
Direct examination ................................................... 50a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 60a
Redirect examination ............................................... 62a

Mrs. Elvira Smith Rolfe (Recalled)—
Direct examination ..................................................  63a



11

Defendants’ Evidence.

Everett C. Norman—
Direct examination ................................................... 65a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 80a
Redirect examination ............................................... 98a
Recross-examination ................................................. 100a

A. G. Jennings, Jr.—
Direct examination ................................................... 101a

Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Evidence.

Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe—
Direct examination ..................................................  102a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 103a

Proceedings .........................................................................104a

Collective Exhibit No. 1 ................................................. 108a

Answer of defendants, County Board of Education of 
Lincoln County, Tennessee et al..................................122a

Memorandum opinion on hearing on motion .............. 128a

Motion for leave to amend answer ................................140a

Amendment to answer ..................................................... 141a

Order filed August 15, 1966 ............................................  141a

Pretrial order ...................................................................  144a

Exceptions to pretrial order ..........................................  151a

TRANSCRIPT OF TESTIMONY AND PRO­
CEEDINGS AT TRIAL, AUGUST 26, 1966.

Caption .........................................................................152a

Appearances................................................................. 152a

Proceedings .................................................................152a



I l l

Defendants’ Evidence.
Everett Norman—-

Direct examination ............................................   163a
Offer of proof out of hearing of Court .............. 172a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 180a
Redirect examination ............................................... 192a

Marian McAfee—
Direct examination ................................................... 193a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 197a
Redirect examination ............................... 198a
Recross-examination ................................................. 198a
Redirect examination ............................................. 198a

Louise Maddox—-
Direct examination ................................................... 199a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 200a
By the C ou rt...............................................................205a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 206a

Nathaniel Almon (Deposition)—
Direct examination ................................................... 208a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 212a

Everett Norman (Recalled)—
Direct examination ................................................... 219a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 219a
Redirect examination ............................................... 220a
By the Court ...............................................................220a

Plaintiffs’ Evidence.

Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles—
Direct examination ................................................... 222a
Cross-examination ..................................................... 223a
Redirect examination ............................................... 224a
Recross-examination ................................................. 224a

Mrs. Elvira Rolfe—
Direct examination ................................................... 225a
Cross-examination .....................................................230a



Ezekial Bell (Deposition)—
Direct examination ...................................................234a
Cross-examination .................................................... 236a

Memorandum opinion on trial of August 26, 1966 . . .  238a

Judgment ...............  240a

Notice of appeal ................................................................241a

iv



MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE and MRS. " 
BERNICE L. PEEBLES,

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 
vs.

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 
OF LINCOLN COUNTY, TEN­
NESSEE, A. J. JENNINGS, JR.,
J. C. KING, THOMAS SMITH, 
TOM PORTER, FRANK ERWIN,
JOE TAFT and ERNEST PEN­
DERGRASS, as Individual Board 
Members Who Acting Together 
Constitute the Said County Board 
of Education of Lincoln County, 
Tennessee and

EVERETT C. NORMAN, Superin­
tendent of Schools,

Defendants-Appellants.

Counsel for Plaintiffs-Appellees:
Avon N. Williams, Jr., Attorney 
327 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville, Tennessee 37201.

Counsel for Defendants-Appellants: 
Robert W. Stevens, Attorney 
Fayetteville, Tennessee.

Civil Action. 
* No. 781.

DOCKET ENTRIES.

Date Proceedings.

1966
4-4 Complaint filed. Motion for temporary restraining 

order and/or preliminary injunction filed.



Docket Entries

4-6 Order, Neese, D. J. that the defts. appear before 
the Hon. C. G. Neese, U. S. District Judge at 9:00 
(EST) on Friday, April 15, 1966 or as soon there­
after as same may be reached on the Court’s cal­
endar to show cause why temporary restraining 
order and/or preliminary injunction should not 
issue. Entered in C. 0. Book 6, p. 206 and filed. 
Service by clerk.

4-6 Summons for each deft, issued and mailed to U. S. 
Marshal.

4-9 Pltf. motion for amendment of show cause order, 
filed. Service by U. S. Marshal.

4-9 Pltf. amendment to complaint and motion for tem­
porary restraining order and/or preliminary in­
junction, filed. Service by U. S. Marshal with 
original pleadings.

4-12 Order, Neese, D. J., resetting hearing on order to 
show cause to Wednesday, April 20, 9:00 a. m. 
at Greenville. Service by clerk.

4-12 Order, Neese, D. J. that the order to show cause 
why the temporary restraining order and/or pre­
liminary injunction should not issue entered in this 
case on April 6, 1966 be and the same is amended 
by inserting in the third line thereof between the 
words “ complaint”  and “ filed”  the following 
words: “ as amended” . Entered in C. O. Book 6, 
p. 211 and filed. Service by clerk.

4-16 Motion of A. G. Jennings to modify or quash sub­
poena duces tecum, filed. Service by counsel.

4-16 Motion of Everett C. Norman to modify or quash 
subpoena duces tecum, filed. Service by counsel.

— 2a —



Docket Entries

4-20 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Neese, D. J., the 
subpoenas duces tecum issued are modified so as 
to require each of the defendant-witnesses to pro­
duce only one copy of each document which he 
possesses or controls as commanded by such respec­
tive subpoenas. Entered in C. O. Book 6, p. 214 
and filed. Service by clerk.

4-20 Pltf. brief in support of motion for temporary re­
straining order, filed. Service by counsel.

4-20 Deft, brief in opposition to pltf. motion for tem­
porary restraining order, filed. Service by counsel.

4- 20 Hearing on the Court’s Order to Show Cause why
temporary restraining order and/or preliminary in­
junction should not issue. Plaintiff’s motion argued 
by counsel. Defendants presented their proof. 
Plaintiff allowed 20 days to file an additional brief 
and deft, allowed 20 days to file an answer and 
brief. Each side allowed to file a supplemental 
brief within 5 days after the original answer and 
briefs are filed. Counsel directed to notify the 
clerk if the evidence the Court has now received 
will determine the case or if a trial will be neces­
sary. Entered in C. O. Book 6, p. 218.

5- 8 Answer, filed. Service by counsel.

5-8 Supplemental brief in opposition to motion for in­
junction, filed. Service by counsel.

5-11 Supplemental brief of plaintiff, filed. Service by 
counsel.

5- 16 Supplemental brief of defendants in opposition to
motion for injunction, filed. Service by counsel.

6- 1 Transcript of testimony, filed.

— 3a —



6- 13 Plaintiffs’ motion to amend supplemental memoran­
dum, filed. Service by counsel.

7- 20 Opinion, Neese, D. J., issuing mandatory injunction
for defts. to forthwith reinstate the pltfs. to their 
most recent positions and salaries; within 90 days 
of its issuance to establish definite objective stand­
ards for employment and retention of teachers; 
case to be placed on docket for sounding on 8/1/66 
for purpose of considering setting of a trial and 
pretrial conference on issue of compensation; coun­
sel to submit agreed order based on this opinion, 
filed. Service by clerk.

7- 28 Deft, motion for suspension of injunction and brief
in support, filed. Service by counsel.

8- 8 Deft, motion for leave to amend motion for sus­
pension of injunction, filed. Service by clerk.

8-8 Brief in reply to deft, motion for leave to amend, 
filed. Service by clerk.

8-11 Pretrial conference.

8-11 Deft, motion for leave to amend answer, filed. 
Service by counsel. Motion allowed in open court.

8-11 Amendment to answer, filed. Service by counsel.

8-11 Order, Neese, D. J., agreed by counsel on opinion 
of July 20th, filed. Service by clerk.

8-11 Deft, motion to dissolve injunction overruled by 
the Court in open courtroom session.

8-18 Notice by deft, to pltfs.’ attys. that defts. will take 
deposition of Nathaniel Almon, Supt. of Education, 
Madison Co., Ala. 8/22/66, filed.

8-18 Pretrial order filed. Service by clerk.

— 4a —
Docket Entries



8-22 Plaintiffs’ exceptions to pretrial order filed. Serv­
ice by counsel.

8-22 Plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact and conclu­
sions of law filed. Service by counsel.

8-22 Plaintiffs’ trial brief filed. Service by counsel.

8-23 Defendants motion to amend pretrial order, filed. 
Service by counsel.

8-23 Defendants exceptions to pretrial order, filed. Serv­
ice by counsel.

8-23 Defendants’ proposed finding of fact and conclu­
sions of law, filed. Service by counsel.

8-26 Deposition of Nathaniel Almon, filed (Exhibit No. 
30).

8-26 Trial to the Court. Plaintiffs presented no opening 
proof; defendants’ proof completed; pltf. rebuttal.

8-29 Transcript of trial, filed.

8-30 Memorandum opinion, Neese, D. J.—The clerk will 
enter judgment against the defendants: in favor of 
the plaintiff Mrs. Rolfe for $2,563.31, and in favor 
of the plaintiff Mrs. Peebles for $3,173.60. The 
clerk will tax $250 as a part of the costs in favor 
of each respective plaintiff as contributions to the 
counsel fees of each. Other matters are reserved, 
filed. Service by clerk.

8- 30 Judgment on decision by the court in accordance
with above memorandum opinion of 8/30/66 en­
tered by the clerk. Service by clerk.

9- 7 Notice of appeal filed by defendants. Service by
clerk to counsel for plaintiffs (Lobby).

— 5a —
Docket Entries



Docket Entries

9-7 Motion for supersedeas and for stay of enforcement 
of the judgment pending disposition of defendants’ 
appeal to the U. 8. Court of Appeals, filed. Service 
by counsel.

9-15 Order, Neese, D. J., that defendants supersedeas 
bond is approved and enforcement of judgment en­
tered on Aug. 30, 1966, is stayed pending defend­
ants appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth 
Circuit. Entered in C. 0. Book 7, p. 52 and filed. 
Service by clerk.

9- 15 Supersedeas bond filed.

10- 10 Defendants’ proposed “ Requirements and Stand­
ards Adopted by the Board of Education of Lin­
coln County, Tenn. for the employment and reten­
tion of teachers”  and motion that the Court approve 
same, filed. Service by counsel.

Statement in connection with presentation of pro­
posed standards for the employment and retention 
of teachers, filed.

10-14 The defendant Board having now adopted and filed 
with the clerk standards to govern the future em­
ployment and retention of teachers in the Lincoln 
County public system, the plaintiffs and all mem­
bers of their class are allowed 20 days in which to 
register exceptions thereto with the Court. If no 
such exceptions are made within said period, this 
action will be retired from the active docket of 
this Court. Entered in C. O. Book 7, p. 85 and 
filed. Service by clerk.

Envelope of exhibits.

10-14 Record on appeal mailed to U. S. Court of Appeals 
at Cincinnati, Ohio.

— 6a —



Complaint

COMPLAINT—FILED APR. 4, 1966.

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 
the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Sections 
1331 and 1343 (B), this being a suit wherein the matter 
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $10,000, ex­
clusive of interest and costs, arising under the Constitu­
tion and laws of the United States, and this being a suit 
in equity authorized by law, Title 42, United States Code, 
Section 1983, to be commenced by any citizen of the 
United States or other person within the jurisdiction 
thereof to redress the deprivation under color of statute, 
ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of a State, of 
rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Consti­
tution and laws of the United States. The rights and 
privileges and immunities sought to be secured by this 
action, are rights, privileges and immunities secured by 
the due process and equal protection clauses of the 
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States, by Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981, and 
by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 601 (78 Stat. 
241, 252-253; Title 42, United States Code, Section 
2000d), as hereinafter more fully appears.

n .

This is a proceeding for a preliminary and permanent 
injunction enjoining the County Board of Education of 
Lincoln County, Tennessee, its members and the Super­
intendent of Schools of Lincoln County, Tennessee, from 
continuing their policy, practice, custom and usage of:

(a) Employing, assigning, transferring, promoting, de­
moting, discharging, re-employing, re-assigning and re­
transferring teachers, principals and other supporting 
personnel in the County School System of said County, 
including the plaintiffs herein, on the basis of race or

— 7a —



Complaint

color or in a racially discriminatory manner; and requir­
ing defendants to disestablish existing segregation;

(b) Discharging, demoting, refusing to re-hire or re­
instate, or refusing to recognize the contractual status 
of teachers, principals and other supporting personnel in 
said School System, including the plaintiffs herein, on 
the basis of race, color or national origin because of 
actual or expected loss of pupils in a school where the 
pupils they serve or have been serving choose or are as­
signed to a school where they can obtain a desegregated 
education;

(c) Discriminating against Negro teachers, principals 
and other supporting personnel in said School System, 
including the plaintiffs herein, on account of race or 
color, in the protection and enforcement of their tenure 
and seniority and/or in the determination of which 
teacher or other personnel shall be discharged where loss 
of pupil enrollment necessitates such discharge; and 
utilizing or attempting to utilize the State Teacher Ten­
ure Law and/or any other state laws, customs or regula­
tions conferring discretion upon defendants in the hiring, 
discharge or re-hiring of teachers, principals or other 
supporting personnel or in the abolition of positions of 
such teachers and other personnel, in such manner as to 
discriminate directly and/or indirectly on account of race 
or color in the hiring, discharge, re-hiring, assignment 
or re-assignment, transferring or re-transferring of such 
teachers, principals and other supporting personnel, in­
cluding the plaintiffs, in said School System;

(d) Assigning, re-assigning, transferring or re-trans­
ferring teachers, principals or other administrative or 
supporting personnel, including the plaintiffs, to schools, 
classes or positions in said School System on a racially 
segregated basis or on the basis of the racial composition

— 8a —



Complaint

or proportion of the students in such schools, classes 01- 
positions;

(e) Conducting or authorizing or permitting the con­
duct of faculty in-service training, faculty meetings or 
any other school-connected professional activities of school 
teachers or other professional personnel in said School 
System on a racially segregated basis;

(f) Making any distinction based on race or color in 
the operation of any aspect, facet or phase of said School 
System.

in.
Plaintiffs, Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe and Mrs. Bernice L. 

Peebles, are Negroes and citizens of the United States, 
Mrs. Rolfe resides in Davidson County, Tennessee. Mrs. 
Peebles resided in Lincoln County, Tennessee at time of 
the incidents referred to herein, but presently is residing 
temporarily in the State of Alabama. Plaintiffs bring 
this action, pursuant to Rule 23 (a) (3) of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, on their own behalf and on 
behalf of all other persons in Lincoln County, and in 
other counties of the State of Tennessee, who are similarly 
situated and/or affected by the policy, practice, custom 
and usage complained of herein. The plaintiffs are and/ 
or were at all times material hereto teachers regulai'ly 
employed by defendants as teachers in the Lincoln County 
School System under the jurisdiction, management and 
control of the defendants and which School System is a 
part of the public school system of the State of Tennessee. 
Plaintiffs were and for many years have been assigned 
by defendants to an all Negro public school with an ex­
clusively Negro faculty consisting only of Negroes, pur­
suant to a policy, practice, custom and usage maintained 
and enforced by defendants of operating a racially segre­
gated school system for said County in which pupils were

— 9a —



Complaint

assigned to schools and segregated by race and teachers 
and other supporting personnel were and are employed, 
assigned, transferred and discharged on a racially segre­
gated basis and/or on the basis of the race or color of 
the faculty members to be employed, assigned, transferred 
or discharged and the race or color of the students or 
majority of the students attending a particular school or 
class within such school, pursuant to the policy, practice, 
custom and usage herein complained of. Said policy, 
practice, custom and usage violates not only the rights 
of plaintiffs and other Negro faculty personnel and ap­
plicants for employment as such faculty personnel, but 
also the rights of Negro children attending said public 
schools, as to whose rights there is a close nexus with 
those of plaintiffs and other Negro teachers and teacher 
applicants for employment here sought to be vindicated 
and in whose behalf plaintiffs also bring this suit, as 
more fully appears hereinafter. The members of the 
class on behalf of which plaintiffs sue are so numerous 
as to make it impracticable to bring them all individually 
before this Court, but there are common questions of law 
and fact involved, common grievances arising out of com­
mon wrongs and a common relief is sought for each plain­
tiff and for each member of the class. The plaintiffs 
fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class.

IV.
Defendants are the County Board of Education of Lin­

coln County, Tennessee, its Superintendent of Schools, 
and the members of the said County Board of Education. 
The defendants are charged with the responsibility under 
Tennessee law of operating, and are and have been oper­
ating, said public school system in Lincoln County, Ten­
nessee, which is and has been receiving Federal financial 
assistance within the meaning of Section 601 of the Civil 
Bights Act of 1964.

— 10a —



Complaint

V.
For many years past the defendants herein, acting un­

der color of the laws of the State of Tennessee and of 
the County of Lincoln, have pursued a policy, practice, 
custom and usage of operating a biracial public school 
system in the County of Lincoln, consisting of separate 
racially segregated schools attended exclusively by Negro 
and white children respectively, with dual racial school 
zone attendance lines and with Negro faculties assigned 
exclusively to Negro schools and white faculties assigned 
exclusively to white schools. Defendants continued oper­
ating said completely biracial school system up to and 
including the school year 1964-65 notwithstanding the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
the Segregation Cases.

After passage of the Civil Eights Act of 1964, and in 
order to continue receiving Federal financial assistance 
under Section 601, et seq. of said Act, the defendants, on 
or about August 3, 1965 adopted a plan for desegregation 
of the Lincoln County Schools. Said plan provided that 
each pupil and his parents or guardian has the absolute 
right to choose the school the child will attend at the 
beginning of the 1965-66 school year and annually there­
after, in all twelve grades of the school system. Said 
student choices were to be made on certain specified 
registration days at or immediately prior to the beginning 
of the Fall Terms, 1965, and the plan provided that no 
teacher, principal or other school official was permitted to 
advise students, parents or guardians, or make recom­
mendations or otherwise influence their decisions; and 
that no child would be favored or penalized because of 
the choices made. The plan further provided that bus 
transportation would be provided on a desegregated basis 
to the school of choice, and that there would be no dis­
crimination based on race, color or national origin in 
any school-connected services, facilities, activities and

— 11a —



Complaint

programs, or in the assignment of teachers and other 
school staff members. With regard to school faculties, 
upon information and belief, plaintiffs aver that the plan 
expressly provided that principals, teachers and other 
staff members would not be discharged or demoted on 
the basis of race, color or national origin because of 
actual or expected loss of pupils in a school where the 
pupils they serve or have been serving choose or are 
assigned to a school where they can obtain a desegregated 
education. Defendants filed said desegregation plan con­
taining, in substance, the foregoing provisions, with the 
State of Tennessee Department of Education on or about 
August . . ,  1965, for submission to the United States De­
partment of Health, Education and Welfare for approval 
by said latter agency so that defendants might continue 
receiving Federal financial assistance. The plan was ap­
proved by the Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare on or about August 31, 1965, and defendants are 
and have been receiving said Federal financial assistance 
on the basis of said approval.

VI.
Notwithstanding the submission of said desegregation 

plan the defendants reassigned the plaintiffs at the be­
ginning of the 1965-66 school year to the high school de­
partment of the same twelve grade Negro School known 
as West End High School, to which defendants had as­
signed them in past years, and pursuant to the same 
policy, practice, custom and usage of faculty and student 
segregation mentioned hereinabove, and with the expecta­
tion and intention of maintaining a segregated Negro 
school which all Negro children could choose to attend 
under the plan or, in the alternative, providing a basis 
for the discharge of plaintiffs under the abolition of posi­
tion provision of the Tennessee Teacher Tenure Law 
(Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-1410 in event 
closure of said Negro School or reduction of its teaching

— 12a —



Complaint

personnel became necessary because of loss of enrollment 
by said Negro children choosing to attend white schools 
under the desegregation plan. At the same time, defend­
ants had employed fifteen new non-tenure white teachers 
for the School Year 1965-66 and assigned them to white 
schools, to handle the increased enrollment in said white 
schools resulting from transfers of said Negro children 
from the Negro Schools, Said Fall, 1965 registration re­
sulted in approximately 200 Negro children electing not 
to attend West End High School. On 8 September 1965, 
after the School Year had begun, defendants summarily 
discharged the plaintiffs.

Both of the plaintiffs are graduates and holders of 
Bachelors Degrees from an approved four year college 
and are qualified and certified as teachers by the State 
of Tennessee Department of Education. The plaintiff, 
Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe, has served for a total of eight years 
as a teacher in public schools. The first six of which were 
in other states and the last two of which have been in the 
Lincoln County School System. The plaintiff, Mrs. 
Bernice L. Peebles, has served for the past two years as 
a teacher in the Lincoln County School System. Both of 
said plaintiffs were re-elected by defendants for the third 
time in the Spring of 1965 to teach in said School System 
for the School Year 1965-66, were under written contracts 
dated August 26, 1965, and if they were white teachers, 
or if the Negro students had not chosen as aforesaid to 
attend a formerly white school rather than the all Negro 
school to which they were formerly assigned, these Negro 
teachers would not have been discharged by defendants.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore aver 
upon said information and belief, that defendants have 
retained in employment many white teachers in said 
School System for the School Year 1965-66 who are less 
or no better qualified educationally and professionally and 
who have lower seniority than the plaintiffs and other

— 13a —



Complaint

Negro teachers similarly situated, and who are teaching 
in positions which said plaintiffs and other Negro teach­
ers similarly situated are qualified to fill. Some of these 
white teachers do not have permanent tenure status. 
Likewise, as aforesaid, defendants hired several new 
white non-tenure teachers for said School Year who are 
teaching in positions which plaintiffs and other Negro 
teachers similarly situated are qualified to fill. Some of 
these white teachers do not even hold college degrees. 
Defendants elected no Negro non-tenure teachers for said 
school year. Defendants elected said new white non­
tenure teachers to fill teaching vacancies in white or 
formerly white schools created wholly or partially by the 
expected increase in student enrollment in these schools 
caused by registration there of Negro students under said 
desegregation plan. Defendants discharged the plaintiffs 
because of the concomitant loss of enrollment in said 
Negro West End High School formerly attended by these 
Negro students. Defendants transferred three other 
Negroes who held tenure status, and two of whom were 
high school teachers, to three separate white elementary 
schools. Defendants refuse to assign any Negro faculty 
personnel at all to the white high school, or on more than 
a token basis to white elementary schools.

Defendants customarily utilize objective educational 
and professional standards of comparison in determining 
which white teachers to discharge in event of abolition of 
teaching positions, and which white teacher applicants 
to employ, and defendants customarily retain white teach­
ers with greater seniority in preference to white teachers 
with lower seniority where loss of enrollment necessitates 
abolition of teaching positions, but defendants refused to 
employ such objective standards or to recognize said 
seniority rights with regard to the plaintiffs, and dis­
charged them, as aforesaid, solely because of race or 
color, thereby granting white teachers and teacher appli-

— 14a —



Complaint

cants a preference on account of race or color, in depriva­
tion of the rights of said plaintiffs and other Negro 
teachers and teacher applicants similarly situated in 
whose behalf they sue, secured by the Due Process and 
Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment 
to the Constitution of the United States and by the Civil 
Eights Act of 1964, Section 601, et seq. Defendants re­
fused and still refuse to transfer, assign or reassign the 
plaintiffs and other Negro teachers similarly situated as 
teachers, or to employ any Negro teachers as teachers or 
principals, in said white or formerly white schools be­
cause of defendants’ continuing policy, practice, custom 
and usage which they have been and still are enforcing, 
of assigning all or predominantly white teachers, prin­
cipals and supporting personnel to schools attended en­
tirely or predominantly by white students, and refusing 
to employ or assign Negro high school teachers, prin­
cipals and supporting personnel to any but an all-Negro 
school.

VII.
The refusal of defendants, on account of race and color, 

to employ or transfer Negro teachers in or to white or 
formerly white schools, or to employ and assign both 
Negro and white teachers to each school in said School 
System, retains a substantial aspect of racial segregation 
and discrimination in the schools which prevents the 
Negro children attending schools in Lincoln County from 
obtaining a racially desegregated and non-discriminatory 
education. The discharge and threat of discharge of 
plaintiffs and any other Negro teachers, principals and 
supporting personnel by defendants in connection with 
and as a result of choices of schools offered to Negro 
children under said desegregation plan, constitutes a 
factor of official coercion designed and tending to influence 
and hinder any freedom of choice by students or their 
parents under said desegregation plan. The rights of

— 15a —



Complaint

said Negro school children are therefore so closely inter­
woven with those of the plaintiffs that they are appropri­
ate members of the class on whose behalf plaintiffs bring 
this suit.

VIII.
The abovementioned policy, practice, custom and usage 

of defendants in enforcing and maintaining, under color 
of state law, said racial discrimination and/or segrega­
tion in the employment, assignment, transfer, promotion, 
demotion, discharge, reemployment, reassignment and re­
transfer of school teachers, principals and other adminis­
trative or supporting personnel in said School System, 
and in continuing to make distinctions in said School Sys­
tem on account of race or color; and their actions pur­
suant thereto in discharging the plaintiffs and/or other 
Negro teachers, principals or supporting personnel simi­
larly situated on account of race or color because of actual 
or expected loss of Negro pupils in a Negro school where 
said Negro pupils chose a formerly white school under 
defendants’ desegregation plan, in refusing to re-hire, 
re-instate or recognize the contractual status of plaintiffs 
and other Negro teaching personnel, in refusing because 
of race or color to apply customary and/or objective 
standards of comparison in selecting teachers for dis­
charge, in refusing because of race or color to recognize, 
protect or enforce the tenure and seniority rights of plain­
tiffs and other Negro teaching personnel, and in hiring, 
re-hiring, assigning, reassigning, transferring or re-trans- 
ferring teachers, principals or other supporting person­
nel to schools, classes or positions in said School System 
on a racially segregated basis or on the basis of the racial 
composition or proportion of the students in such schools 
or classes without regard to the qualifications, tenure 
rights or seniority of such teachers or personnel, deprive 
plaintiffs and the class they represent, including other 
Negro teachers or prospective teachers in said County,

— 16a —



Complaint

and including all Negro school children attending school 
in said County, of due process of law and of the equal 
protection of the laws secured by the Fourteenth Amend­
ment to the Constitution of the United States, and are 
therefore, unconstitutional and void, and also deprive 
said plaintiffs and the class they represent of rights 
secured by Title 42, United States Code, Section 1981, 
and by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 601, in that 
they are thereby subjected by said state officials, under 
color of state law, to racial discrimination in said public 
school system of Lincoln County, Tennessee, which re­
ceives Federal financial assistance.

The injury which the plaintiffs and said members of 
their class suffer as a result of said racially discrimina­
tory policy, practice, custom, usage and actions of de­
fendants is irreparable and will continue to irreparably 
injure plaintiffs and their class until enjoined by this 
Court. Any other relief to which the plaintiffs and those 
similarly situated could be remitted would be attended 
by such uncertainties and delays as to deny substantial 
relief, would involve multiplicity of suits, cause further 
irreparable injury, and occasion damage, vexation, and 
inconvenience, not only to plaintiffs and those similarly 
situated, but to defendants as public officials.

IX.

The individual plaintiffs who were discharged, or at­
tempted to be discharged, by defendants, as aforesaid, 
aver that they are entitled to immediate relief. They and 
each of them are and have been at all times ready, willing 
and able to perform and have offered to perform their 
teaching duties for said 1965-66 School Year, but are 
prevented from doing so by defendants’ actions outlined 
above. Said plaintiffs are and have been unable to ob­
tain employment commensurate for which they were em­
ployed by the defendants and they are, therefore, entitled

— 17a —



Complaint

not only to immediate reinstatement, and recognition of 
their tenure status, but also to their full contractual 
salaries from the beginning of the school year 1965-66 to 
date of reinstatement and thereafter in due course, and 
to their reasonable attorney fees as hereinafter prayed.

X.
There is between the parties an actual controversy as 

hereinbefore set forth.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court 

advance on the docket and order a speedy hearing of 
same according to law and after such hearing:

1. Issue a temporary restraining order and/or pre­
liminary injunction requiring the defendants to immedi­
ately reinstate and recognize the plaintiffs, Mrs. Elvira 
S. Rolfe and Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles as teachers in the 
Lincoln County School System, including the recognition 
of their tenure status, and to assign, re-assign, transfer 
or re-transfer them to appropriate schools as teachers 
and/or principal teachers in said System without regard 
to their race or color or the racial composition or propor­
tion of the students in such schools, or classes within 
such schools, in which they are so employed; to pay said 
plaintiffs forthwith all pay due them for services hereto­
fore rendered, and also to pay them their regular pay for 
the period expired from the beginning of the School Year 
1965-66 to date of reinstatement and all subsequent reg­
ular pay as same accrues, pending further orders of the 
Court.

2. That upon the final hearing this Court enter a decree 
permanently enjoining the defendants and each of them, 
their agents, employees and successors from:

(a) Employing, assigning, transferring, promoting, de­
moting, discharging, re-employing, re-assigning and re­
transferring teachers, principals and other supporting

— 18a —



Complaint

personnel in the County School System of said County, 
including the plaintiffs herein, on the basis of race or 
color or in a racially discriminatory manner; but requir­
ing defendants, however, to disestablish the racial segre­
gation previously created and now existing by employing 
and assigning both Negro and white teachers to each 
school in said School System in the approximate propor­
tion that the total County Negro school population bears 
to the total County white school population;

(b) Discharging, demoting, refusing to re-hire or re­
instate or refusing to recognize the contractual status of 
teachers, principals and other supporting personnel in 
said School System, including the plaintiffs herein, on the 
basis of race, color or national origin because of actual 
or expected loss of pupils in a school where the pupils 
they serve or have been serving choose or are assigned to 
a school where they can obtain a desegregated education;

(c) Discriminating against Negro teachers, principals 
and other supporting personnel in said School Ssystem, 
including the plaintiffs herein, on account of race or color, 
in the protection and enforcement of their tenure and 
seniority and/or in the determination of which teacher or 
other personnel shall be discharged where loss of pupil 
enrollment necessitates such discharge; and utilizing or 
attempting to utilize the State Teacher Tenure Law 
and/or any other state laws, customs or regulations con­
ferring discretion upon defendants in the hiring, dis­
charge or re-hiring of teachers, principals or other sup­
porting personnel or in the abolition of positions of such 
teachers and other personnel, in such manner as to dis­
criminate directly and/or indirectly on account of race 
or color in the hiring, discharge, re-hiring, assignment or 
re-assignment, transferring or re-transferring of such 
teachers, principals and other supporting personnel, in­
cluding the plaintiffs, in said School System;

— 19a —



— 20a
Complaint

(d) Assigning, re-assigning, transferring or re-trans­
ferring teachers, principals or other administrative or 
supporting personnel, including the plaintiffs, to schools, 
classes or positions in said School System on a racially 
segregated basis or on the basis of the racial composition 
or proportion of the students in such schools, classes or 
positions;

(e) Conducting or authorizing or permitting the con­
duct of faculty in-service training, faculty meetings or 
any other school-connected professional activities of school 
teachers or other professional personnel in said School 
System on a racially segregated basis;

(f) Making any distinction based on race or color in 
the operation of any aspect, facet or phase of said School 
System except for the measure required for disestablish­
ment of previously created faculty segregation mentioned 
in sub-paragraph (a) above.

3. Plaintiffs pray that this Court will award reasonable 
counsel fees to their attorneys for services rendered and 
to be rendered them in this cause, and allow them their 
costs herein and grant such further, other, additional or 
alternative relief as may appear to the Court to he equi­
table and just.

Z. ALEXADER LOOBY,
AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.,
DAVID VINCENT,

327 Charlotte Avenue,
Nashville, Tennessee 37201,

JACK GREENBERG,
JAMES M. NABRIT, III,
DERRICK A. BELL, JR.,

10 Columbus Circle, Suite 2030, 
New York, New York 10019, 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.



State of Tennessee,
County of Davidson.

Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe makes oath in due form of law 
that she is one of the plaintiffs in the above case; that 
she has read and knows the contents of the foregoing 
Complaint and that the statements made therein are true 
as of her own knowledge, except as to those statements 
which are stated therein to be made upon information and 
belief, and these statements she believes to be true.

/ s /  MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLPE.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, Avon N. Williams, 
Jr., a Notary Public in and for said State and County, 
this 25th day of March, 1966.

(seal).
/ s /  AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR., 

Notary Public.
My Commission Expires: 6-22-67.

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 
AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION- 

FILED APRIL 4, 1966.

Come the plaintiffs in this case, named hereinabove in 
the caption, and move the Court for a temporary restrain­
ing order and/or preliminary injunction requiring the de­
fendants to immediately reinstate and recognize the plain­
tiffs, Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe and Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles, 
as teachers in the Lincoln County School System, includ­
ing the recognition of their tenure status, and to assign, 
re-assign, transfer or re-transfer them to appropriate 
schools as teachers and/or principal teachers in said Sys­
tem without regard to their race or color or the racial 
composition or proportion of the students in such schools, 
or classes within such schools, in which they are so em-

— 21a —
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, etc.



— 22a —
Order to Show Cause

ployed; to pay said plaintiffs forthwith all pay due them 
for services heretofore rendered, and also to pay them 
their regular pay for the period expired from the begin­
ning of the School Year 1965-66 to date of reinstatement 
and all subsequent regular pay as same accrues, pending 
further orders of the Court.

And for grounds of said Motion, the plaintiffs specify 
the matters and things alleged in their verified complaint 
filed herewith, all of which are incorporated herein by 
reference and made a part of this Motion.

Z. ALEXANDER LOOBY,
AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.,
DAVID VINCENT,

327 Charlotte Avenue,
Nashville, Tennessee 37201, 

JACK GREENBERG,
JAMES M. NABRIT, III,
DERRICK A. BELL, JR.,

10 Columbus Circle,
Suite 2030,

New York, New York 10019, 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY TEMPORARY RE­
STRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY IN­
JUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE—FILED APRIL
6, 1966.

Upon application of the plaintiffs and for good cause 
shown, it is Ordered that the defendants named in the 
caption of the Complaint filed in this cause, and each of 
them, appear before the Honorable C. G. Neese, United 
States District Judge, at 9:00 (EST) on Friday, April 15, 
1966, or as soon thereafter as same may be reached on the



23a —

Court’s calendar in the United States District Courtroom 
of said Judge, United States Courthouse at Greenville, 
Tennessee, and show cause why the temporary restraining 
order and/or preliminary injunction as more particularly 
set forth in the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 
and/or Preliminary Injunction heretofore filed herein, 
should not issue; and it is further Ordered that a copy of 
said Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or 
Preliminary Injunction, together with a copy of this 
Order shall be served by the United States Marshal upon 
the defendants and each of them simultaneously with the 
service of process and copy of the Complaint in this cause.

Enter:
C. G. NEESE,

United States District Judge.

ANSWER TO “ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RE­
STRAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY IN­
JUNCTION” AND RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE 
ORDER—FILED APRIL 20, 1966.

Now come the defendants and, without prejudice to or 
waiver of their rights to answer the complaint in this 
case more fully within the time allowed by law, for an­
swer to plaintiffs’ application for certain relief entitled 
“ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Pre­
liminary Injunction”  and in response to the order of the 
court to show cause why the injunction sought by said 
motion should not issue, and say:

I.

Said motion does not, in fact, seek a restraining order 
or a temporary injunction but a mandatory injunction.

Answer to Motion for Temporary Order, etc.



— 24a —

Answer to Motion for Temporary Order, etc.

II.

The relief sought hy said motion is not to maintain the 
subject matter in status quo until a determination can 
be made by the court on the merits.

III.

There is not presented at this juncture a case of urgent 
necessity for an immediate restraint to prevent irrepa- 
able injury.

IV.

There is no necessity of the injunction sought by said 
motion because the plaintiffs have an adequate legal 
remedy.

V.

The burden of proof of plaintiffs’ right to such injunc­
tion is on the plaintiffs.

VI.

It would not be equitable to deprive the defendants of 
a trial or full evidentiary hearing on the issues of fact in 
this case by granting said motion.

VII.

There is no authority in law for the granting of said 
motion or the relief sought thereby.

VIII.

All of the material allegations of the complaint, as 
amended, that are adverse to the defendants, are untrue 
and are denied.



25a —

IX.

There are at present no vacancies in the Lincoln County 
School System for which the plaintiffs are qualified.

X.

The defendants are not indebted to the plaintiffs for 
any services heretofore rendered by them nor are they 
entitled to any pay for the period that has expired since 
the beginning of the school year of 1965-1966.

XI.

Even if it should be found that the plaintiffs were 
illegally discharged, which is denied, it would be unjust, 
illegal, and inequitable to order payment of any salaries 
to them for the expired portion of said school year with­
out a trial on the merits after an opportunity is afforded 
for all proper pleadings and other proceedings upon is­
sues pertaining to the plaintiffs’ diligence in minimizing 
their damages, if any.

Answer to Motion for Temporary Order, etc.

XII.

Until the defendants have an opportunity to answer 
more fully the complaint filed against them, they deny 
the matters and things alleged in said motion by refer­
ence to said complaint.

STEVENS & BAGLEY,
By: ROBERT W. STEVENS, 

ROBERT W. STEVENS,
220 East College Street, 

Fayetteville, Tennessee, 
Attorneys for Defendants.



— 26a —
Caption

State of Tennessee,
County of Lincoln.

Everett C. Norman, being duly sworn, deposes and says 
that be is one of the defendants in the within entitled 
action, that he has read the foregoing answer or response 
and knows the contents thereof and that the allegations 
of facts therein contained are true.

s/ EVERETT C. NORMAN.

Sworn to and subscribed before me, this the 19 day of 
April, 1966.

R. W. STEVENS, 
Notary Public.

My commission expires 6th day of October, 1969.

1* In the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
For the Eastern District of Tennessee, 

Winchester Division.

MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE and 
MRS. BERNICE L. PEEBLES,

Plaintiffs,

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCA­
TION of LINCOLN COUNTY, 
TENNESSEE, et al.,

Defendants. _

Civil Action. 
No. 781.

The above-entitled case came on for a Hearing on Mo­
tion for Injunction before the Hon. C. G. Neese, Judge 
of the above-styled court, at Greeneville, Tennessee, on

* Numbers appearing in outer edge of text indicate page numbers of 
original stenographic transcript of testimony.



Proceedings

Wednesday, April 20, 1966, at 9:00 o ’clock a. m., pursuant 
to notice.

Appearances:
Avon Williams, Esq., appeared on behalf of the Plain­

tiffs.
Robert W. Stevens, Esq., of the firm of Stevens and 

Bagley, appeared on behalf of the Defendants. 
# # * # * * #

3 (Thereupon, court reconvened at 1:00 o ’clock p. m., 
and the following proceedings were had:)

The Court: Are you gentlemen still ready?
Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor.
Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Will you have your witnesses sworn, please? 
(Thereupon the witnesses were duly sworn by the 

Clerk.)
The Court: Call your first witness.
Is the rule requested by either side?
Mr. Williams: All witnesses are parties, your Honor. 
The Court: All right. Call your first witness.
Mr. Williams: Prior to calling the first witness, your 

Honor, Mr. Stevens has handed me several documents 
in response to a subpoena duces tecum, and I would like 
to request, if Mr. Stevens will stipulate to these docu­
ments that they will correctly reflect the events and dates 
they purport to reflect.

Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, I, of course, will stipulate
4 it, but the witness will have to verify them.

The Court: Well, if you stipulate it, then you don’t 
need to verify it.

Mr. Stevens: I will stipulate to them as far as I know. 
The Court: All right, let it be stipulated.
Do you wish these marked as exhibits?

— 27a —



Proceedings

Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor, I would like to have 
these marked as exhibits. Would the Court prefer to 
have them marked separately? They do pertain to differ­
ent matters.

The Court: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Then I will first offer the Plan of School 

Segregation, dated May 4, 1965, and related documents 
filed by the defendant Board with the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare.

The Court: Let it be marked Collective Exhibit No. 1.
(Thereupon the documents referred to were marked 

“ Collective Exhibit No. 1.” )
Mr. Williams: Next is Statement of Federal Funds re­

ceived by Lincoln County School System in 1965 School 
Year.

The Court: Let it he marked Exhibit No. 2.
5 (Thereupon the document referred to was marked 

“Exhibit No. 2.” )
Mr. Williams: Next is excerpts from Minutes of Lincoln 

County Board of Education pertaining to school desegre­
gation since 1954.

The Court: Mark it Collective Exhibit No. 3.
(Thereupon the documents referred to were marked 

“ Collective Exhibit No. 3.” )
Mr. Williams: Next is Minutes of that same Board re­

lating to election, appointment or discharge of teachers 
for 1965-66 school year.

The Court: Let it be marked Collective Exhibit No. 4.
(Thereupon the documents referred to were marked 

“Collective Exhibit No. 4.” )
Mr. Williams: The next is a statement of names, race, 

qualifications, tenure status, subjects taught, school as­
signment of old and new teachers.

The Court: Let it be marked Collective Exhibit No. 5.
(Thereupon the documents referred to were marked 

“ Collective Exhibit No. 5.” )

— 28a —



29a —

Mr. Williams: Next is a Chart, showing the respective 
Negro and white school population of each school, and 

the totals.
6 The Court: Let it be marked Collective Exhibit 

No. 6.
(Thereupon the documents referred to were marked 

“ Collective Exhibit No. 6.” )
Mr. Williams: Next is a statement in chart form show­

ing teachers and students by race in each school.
The Court: Let it be marked Exhibit No. 7.
(Thereupon, the document referred to was marked 

“Exhibit No. 7.” )
Mr. Williams: Now, then, if your Honor please, we would 

like to call the plaintiff Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe.
The Court: All right.

Thereupon------

MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE,
a plaintiff herein, was called as a witness on her own 
behalf and after being first duly sworn, was examined and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. State your name, age, and present address, please 
ma’am!

A. Elvira Smith Rolfe; 61 years old; 1024 Villa Place, 
Nashville, Tennessee.

7 Q. How long have you resided in Nashville?
A. Oh, thirty-five years.

Q. You are a Negro, I believe?
A. I believe so.
Q. Citizen of the United States?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And one of the plaintiffs in this case?

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe 

A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is your occupation, your present occupation? 
A. I am unemployed just now.
Q. At the time of the events about which we are com­

plaining in this law suit, what was your occupation?
A. I was a teacher in Lincoln County, West End High 

School.
Q. In Lincoln County School System?
A. Yes, in Lincoln County High School, School System. 
Q. Mrs. Rolfe, when were you first employed?
A. I was employed the latter part of August, 1963.
Q. Were you continuously employed there up until 

September, 1965?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. By what method were you employed?
A. The principal was looking for someone whose field 

was Science, but had had Spanish, since they were putting 
Spanish in the course. The principal interviewed 

8 me and had me come to town and meet the Super­
intendent.

Q. Will you state briefly your educational background? 
A. I have a B. S. Degree in Science.
Q. Of what institution?
A. Florida A & M University.
Q. Florida A & M University?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, go on.
A. I taken—I have had a year and a half at Tennessee 

A & I in elementary subjects.
Q. Post-graduate studies in elementary subjects?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are you certified as a public school teacher?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. By the State of Tennessee?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. In what fields are you certified?

— 30a —



31a —

A. I am certified in four fields in the elementary school, 
and in secondary school, and in the elementary school.

Q. Do you mean by that you are certified as an elemen­
tary school teacher?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you are also certified in four fields in

9 secondary education?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What are the fields you are certified in secondary 
education?

A. General Science, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. 
Q. Now, then, an elementary certification means, of 

course, you can teach any elementary subject?
A. Through the first nine grades.
Q. Were you so certified in these areas when you were 

employed by them?
A. I was.
Q. Have you taught in any school other than West End 

High School in the Lincoln County School System?
A. No.
Q. When you were employed through the Principal, you 

say, at West End, was that done by letter, or how; just 
explain that to the Court?

A. Well, when he talked with me on the telephone and 
asked me to come to town to have an interview with the 
Superintendent, which I did, he met me at the bus and 
took me to the Superintendent’s office, and we had an 
interview.

Q. What I am driving at—I guess I am wasting tim e- 
will you state to the Court what the method is that

10 had been utilized by the Lincoln County Board of 
Education in employing teachers; what is the

mechanics of it?
A. Well, the mechanics, you are elected, re-elected in 

the month before closing of school.
Q. For the ensuing year?

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



— 32a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe

A. Yes.
The Court: You are re-elected when? I didn’t under­

stand.
The Witness: In April.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) And that is, I believe you said, 

the month before closing of the school?
A. The month before the closing of school.
Q. How are you notified of that re-election?
A. By letter.
Q. From whom does that letter come?
A. It comes from the Superintendent and the Board 

of Education.
Q. What does that letter say?
A. It says that you are re-elected for the year ’65-66, 

and if you accept, please sign and return.
Q. Did you receive such a letter in April, 1965?
A. I did.
Q. What action did you take in response thereto?

A. I signed it and sent it back.
11 Q. I believe this is already evidenced by the docu­

ment by way of preliminary matter.
State whether or not up through the 1964-’65 school 

year the Lincoln County School System was completely 
segregated or desegregated?

A. It was completely segregated for that year.
Q. Racially?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And the school in which you taught then had all 

Negro students and all Negro faculty?
A. All Negro students and all Negro faculty.
Q. Was that the only Negro high school in Lincoln 

County?
A. No.
Q. Was there another Negro high school in Lincoln 

County ?
A. In Lincoln County?



Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe

Q. Yes.
A. That is the only one in Lincoln County.
Q. All right now, you did receive this letter to which 

you referred in April, 1965, and sent in the response?
A. I did.
Q. Now, following that, and before the end of the year, 

did the teachers in West End High School have any
12 conference at all with the Superintendent of the 

Lincoln County School System?
A. We requested the teachers to talk with the Super­

intendent.
Q. Why?
A. Because we wanted to know—we knew we were 

going to he integrated.
Q. How did you know that?
A. Well, it was circulated that there would be integra­

tion and the Superintendent came out and talked to 
the------

Q. Was that the defendant, Mr. Norman, here?
A. Mr. Norman.
Q. He came out to the school, to the West End High 

School?
A. To the West End High School, and met with the 

teachers.
Q. Were you present?
A. I was present.
Q. And that was before the close of school in the spring ? 
A. That was about the end of the school, yes, sir.
Q. Will you state what, if anything, the Superintendent 

—what, if any, questions were asked, pertinent questions, 
that is, asked the Superintendent with regard to

13 what would happen to the Negro teachers at West 
End High School in regard to desegregation?

A. Yes, different ones asked questions, but I don’t think 
he really gave any definite answer about what would



happen in this case; he just didn’t know just what would 
happen.

Q. Did the Negro teachers make known to him that they 
were concerned about this?

A. Very much so.
Q. Did Mr. Norman make any remarks with regard to 

a comparison of what would happen to the West End High 
School faculty as regards what would happen to other 
faculties ?

A. Well, Mr. Norman did say that West End would be 
the only school that would be hurt.

Q. And although the teachers requested information as 
to where their assignments would be, and what would 
happen to them, he declined to furnish that information?

Mr. Stevens: I object to leading, your Honor.
The Court: Objection is sustained as suggesting an 

answer.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Was anything further said?
A. Said about school?
Q. Yes, and what would happen to the Negro teachers? 

A. No.
14 Q. Now then, did you receive any further com­

munication from the Superintendent’s office or from 
the Board during the summer of 1965?

A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Did you report for official duty at any time in the 

Fall of 1965?
A. I did.
Q. In response to what now?
A. I reported for in-service training on the 18th, 19th 

and 20th.
Q. Of what?
A. August.
Q. 1965?
A. 1965.

— 34a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe



Q. And before we get to that, I will inquire as to what 
has been the custom in Lincoln County with regard to 
written teaching contracts'?

A. The contracts are signed when you go to get your 
first check, the 15th of September.

Q. Now, going back to the letter that was mailed to 
you from the Superintendent in April, which would indi­
cate that you had been elected for the ensuing year, did 
that letter state you were elected to the Lincoln County 
School System or some particular school in that sys­

tem?
15 A. I think it was the Lincoln County System.

Q. School system?
A. School system.
Q. So then, at the time you reported for the in-service 

training on the 18th of August, you had a letter notifying 
you of your election and which you had accepted and 
sent back, as a teacher in the County School System?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Had that method likewise been used in the handling 

of that matter in prior years?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State what, if anything, occurred when you reported 

for in-service training on the 18th of August?
A. Well, we were at West End, supposed to have in- 

service training, and we were there trying------
Q. How did you happen to go back to West End?
A. I saw the notice in the paper.
Q. The notice in the paper then directed you to go 

back to the school you had been------
A. No, it spoke of in-service training, which I know. 

At the end of the year we are told of these in-service 
days. I had the dates written down.

Q. You were told to return to the same school for in- 
service training?

— 35a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe 

A. Oh, yes.
16 Q. Go on and tell us what—did anything unusual 

occur in connection with your in-service training?
A. Well, we were trying to formulate as best we could 

what we were going to do. I think Mr. Norman came out 
there one day, but he didn’t talk to us. Two days, the 
18th and 19th, we were—the West End teachers were at 
West End. The 20th we had an integrated meeting at 
Central High School.

Q. Now, what, if anything, occurred in that integrated 
meeting with regard to employment of any new teachers 
in the system?

A. On the 20th?
Q. Yes.
A. Oh, yes, that is the day these fifteen white teachers 

were introduced at this meeting.
Q. As being new teachers just employed?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, then, on what day did school begin?
A. The following week the students started coming in. 
Q. Do you recall what day of the week that was?
A. I think it was Monday.
Q. Do you recall what date it was?
A. The 23rd, if Monday was the 23rd.

Q. 23rd of August. Was there a loss of enrollment
17 in the West End High School?

A. Yes.
Q. How many students had you had in that High School 

in prior years, approximately?
A. We had approximately four hundred.
Q. Was that in the High School alone?
A. No.
Q. The entire school?
A. About 150 or 200 in the High School.
Q. I believe West End was a 12th Grade School, ele­

mentary department and the high school?

— 36a —



A. Yes, sir.
Q. High School department incidentally is a four grade 

department, ninth to twelfth?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you had approximately 200 Negro students 

in that department in prior years?
A. Yes.
Q. Approximately how many of those students showed 

up for their August 23rd registration, 1965?
A. A  good many of them showed up and then possibly 

they decided they would go over to Central after they 
came over—not all of them showed up, but some of them 

decided in the Summer to go over.
18 Q. What I am asking you is, approximately how 

many students did you lose Mrs. Rolfe?
A. We lost in the neighborhood of 150 students with 

the bus students.
The Court: That just in the high school?
The Witness: No.
The Court: How many did you lose in the high school, 

that is where you were teaching?
The Witness: In the high school, we lost about, I 

should say, around 75 or 76, more or less.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Are you sure of that?
A. I am not too sure.
Mr. Stevens: I object to him cross-examining the wit­

ness.
The Court: He has a right to ask if she is sure.
Mr. Williams: I wanted to ask if you were sure because 

it seems to be contrary to what you advised me.
The Court: You can ask her.
The Witness: Contrary------
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Approximately how many stu­

dents did you lose all told------
Mr. Stevens: Object to that, your Honor.

— 37a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



19 The Court: Overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Do you recall approximately 

how many students you lost all together?
A. Really I couldn’t say exactly.
Q. What subjects were you teaching?
A. I had a Physics class, Science class, and there was 

some students who wanted to take Spanish, but Mr. Dumas 
said not to have a class unless I could get a certain 
number.

Q. Without knowing exactly how many students were 
lost, do you know the sources of these losses?

A. Some of them, yes—I am not too certain. Some of 
them were lost at Petersburg school—is that what you 
mean? Some of the other high schools that were inte­
grated.

Q. Some of the high schools in Lincoln County?
A. Yes, that were integrated.
Q. They were zoned geographically?
A. Yes, they kept their students.
Q. Were there any transferees to Central High School? 
A. There in town, you mean?
Q. Yes ma’am.
A. Transfers?

Q. Were there any Negro high school children who
20 had been or would have been in the West End 

High School who went to Central High School?
A. Yes, a good many.
Q. And who had been coming in from Moore County 

or from another county?
A. I don’t think so.
Q. Did you continue teaching your classes, Mrs. Rolfe? 
A. Yes.
Q. How long did you teach before anything unusual 

happened ?
A. Until the 8th of September.

— 38a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



— 39a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe

Q. A period of approximately------
A. Three weeks.
Q. What happened on the 8th of September?
A. The 8th of September at 10:00 o ’clock, Mr. Dumas 

came to my room and said Mr. Norman wanted to see 
me at his office. I went down there to see Mr. Norman.

Q. Mr. Dumas was the principal?
A. The principal.
Q. All right.
A. Mr. Norman told me because of the drop in the 

enrollment that my position was abolished at 3:00 o ’clock 
that day, September 8th.

21 Q. Mrs. Rolfe, did Mr. Norman say anything fur­
ther to you at that time; did you have any discus­

sion about it?
A. Yes, he talked quite awhile. He said he thought pos­

sibly something would develop around Christmas whereby 
he could re-hire us and then he just talked about the 
chances.

Q. This was your third year you were there, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Rolfe, will you examine this document? Have 

you seen a document like that adressed to you?
A. This was sent to me after I was dismissed.
Q. A document similar or like that? If you will notice, 

that is addressed to Mrs. Ruby Clark?
A. Yes.
Q. Was a document addressed to you exactly like that 

sent to you after you were dismissed?
A. It was. Yes, it was. I don’t say it is word for word 

because I don’t have it right now, but it was a good while 
—but this is what it was.

Q. Will you introduce that as the next exhibit?
A. Yes.
The Court: Mark it as Exhibit No. 8 without objection.



22 Mr. Stevens: I object to the introduction of it, 
your Honor.

The Court: On what basis!
Mr. Stevens: On the basis it is not----- -
The Court: Do you deny a similar letter was sent to 

this plaintiff!
Mr. Stevens: Let me see it?
(Document handed to Mr. Stevens.)
Mr. Stevens: I will withdraw my objection, your Honor.
The Court: All right. Let it be marked Exhibit No. 8.
(Thereupon the letter referred to was marked “ Exhibit 

No. 8” .)
The Court: The Court understands this was not the 

specific letter she received, but one similar, as she said, 
maybe not word for word, but similar.

Q. (By Mr. Williams) Mrs. Rolfe, were there any other 
Negro teachers—I gather from this letter there were other 
Negro teachers at West End who received this letter and 
were discharged?

A. There were four of us.
Q. Will you state their names, please, the names of the 

other three?
28 A. Mrs. Bernice Peebles, Mr. Pettigrew——

Q. Henry Pettigrew?
A. Mr. Henry Pettigrew, and Mrs. Ruby Bridge Clark.
Q. And Mrs. Clark is the one to whom that particular 

letter is addressed?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mrs. Rolfe, were any white teachers dismissed 

that you know of?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Were you able to obtain other employment?
A. No, it was too late and the school had opened and I 

haven’t been able to get employment.
Q. What was your salary per month on the ten month 

basis for that 1965-66 school year?

— 40a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe



41a —

A. $4,025.00.
Q. For the full year?
A. Yes, for the year.
Q. What was the custom and practice in Lincoln County 

School System with regard to requiring or not requiring 
that teachers teach strictly in their areas of segregation?

A. Each teacher—I was told that each teacher could 
teach one subject out of her field.

Q. And you were told that by whom?
A. By the principal and Mr. Norman when I got to

24 his office. He understood I came as a Spanish 
teacher.

Q. You were not certified to teach Spanish?
A. No, that is out of my field, hut I had had Spanish.
Q. Mrs. Rolfe------
The Court: Let me interrupt you before you get away 

from that, Mrs. Rolfe.
You said some students who wanted to study Spanish 

and you were told unless there was a certain number 
wanted this course that it could not be offered. Was it 
ever offered?

The Witness: It wasn’t, but I tell you, those periods I 
was sitting down doing nothing, so I told them they could 
come in and we would talk over Spanish.

The Court: So you just informally instructed them?
The Witness: I did.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Mrs. Rolfe, did you ever receive 

any notice whatsoever, written or oral, from the defend­
ants prior to September 8, 1966—1965, of your discharge 
as a teacher in the school system?

A. No.
Q. In the 1965-66 school year, state whether or not all 

the teachers assigned to West End High School
25 were Negro students?

A. In ’65-’66?

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



Q. Yes, the year you were discharged?
A. All the teachers were re-elected.
Q. All the teachers who were re-elected and were as­

signed to West End High School were Negroes?
A. To West End were Negroes; yes, all the teachers 

were Negroes.
Q. State whether or not all the students were Negroes?
A. For that year all the students were Negroes.
Q. Is that still true?
A. Oh, it is still true.
Q. What has been the custom in the past when a school 

would be closed or a reduction in enrollment would occur, 
what would happen to the teachers in that school? Would 
they just be fired or would an effort be made to transfer 
them to another school?

A. I should think that there would be a transfer to 
another school.

Mr. Williams: You may cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Mrs. Rolfe, I believe you say you graduated 
26 from Florida A. & M.?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. 1922.
Q. And you had a certificate to teach in Tennessee?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what subjects were you certified to teach?
A. I am certified to teach Chemistry, Physics, Biology 

and General Science, and elementary grades.
Q. Those subjects you mentioned were High School 

grades ?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I would like to show you a paper here and ask you 

if this is a copy of your certificate to teach in Tennessee?

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



Mr. Stevens: We think maybe there is an error in our 
—we may have given him two papers or three on Mrs. 
Peebles. I will try and straighten them out.

The Court: I thought that was what you were com­
plaining about, having to give more than one copy.

Now, Mrs. Rolfe, you may answer the question.
A. Yes, this is.

27 The Witness: Your Honor, may I show my certifi­
cate? I have it with me.

The Court: Your lawyer will ask you about that.
She wanted to know if she could show her certificate. 

She said she had it here. Would you like for her to 
produce it?

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Is that letter there incorrect?
A. No. It was first issued to me in 1962 for two years, 

and if I would teach, go to school and get fifteen hours, 
I was going to teach, and go to school and get fifteen 
hours and it would be extended.

Q. All right.
A. She first told me she would extend it ten years, but 

she extended it from ’64 to ’66. I first got my A & M 
Certificate in ’64.

Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, I think it would be hearsay. 
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Is that your certificate there or 

copy of it?
A. I have my certificate with me. I have the teacher’s 

copy with me.
Q. What is that you have in front of you?

A. This is a statement from them that it is
28 temporary, and this is the secondary expires this 

year, which expires in June, which gives me time
to renew it.

Q. That paper you have in front of you don’t say that, 
does it?

A. It was renewed in ’64.

— 43a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe



Q. What is the date of the paper you have
A. Which expires June 30, 1966.
Q. June when?
A. June 30, 1966.
Q. That is the date of that letter?
The Court: What is the date of the letter?
The Witness: The date of the letter is April 12, 1966.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Will you read that letter, what it 

says?
A. Bead the letter?
Q. Yes.
A. “ To whom it may concern:
“ This is to certify that Elvira Smith Rolfe holds tem­

porary certificate No. 401255, which expires June 30, 1966. 
This certificate is based on the Bachelor’s Degree and 
endorsed General Science, Biology, Chemistry and Phys­
ics. Yours truly.”

Q. You say you have a certificate that you can 
29 produce ?

A. I have a teacher’s copy.
Q. Will you produce that, please?
A. May I get my bag, please?
(The Marshal hands the witness her bag.)
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) You are familiar with these cer­

tificates you just handed the Marshal. Is there on here 
anything about your being certified to teach in elementary 
school?

Mr. Williams: I object to that, if your Honor please. 
The certificate speaks for itself, or they speak for them­
selves. That is the only reason I didn’t introduce them
was because I didn’t want her to lose them, if your 
Honor please.

Mr. Stevens: Could we pass these certificates to the 
Court ?

The Court: I will be glad to look at them. It seems to

— 44a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe

me



Mr. Williams: You have the wrong one here. This is
the one you want. This code shows------

The Court: Proceed.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Would you be willing to have 

copies made of your certificates and file them in this 
court as exhibits to your testimony at this time?

30 A. Copies of that; yes, sir.
Q. Photo copies?

A. Yes.
Mr. Williams: We certainly would.
The Court: All right. They will be marked Collective 

Exhibit No. 9, I believe it is, the photo copies, and re­
turn the originals to the witness.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Mrs. Rolfe, did you ever apply for 
a position teaching in elementary schools in Lincoln 
County?

A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Where were you living at the time you were last 

teaching in Lincoln County; where was your home?
A. I was living at 212 Hedgemont Avenue.
Q. In Fayetteville?
A. In Fayetteville.
Q. And on the day you were told by the principal that 

your services were no longer needed, or to report to the 
superintendent, what were you teaching?

A. I was teaching those four subjects, and Spanish.
Q. You were teaching all four?
A. Teaching three of them, General Science, Physics, 

Chemistry, and two classes in Spanish.
31 Q. Had the principal assigned you a room to teach 

in and had a class actually to teach at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Who taught that class for the rest of the day?
A. That I was notified?
Q. Yes.

— 45a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



A. I did.
Q. Who taught it the next day?
A. I wasn’t there.
Q. Did you ever hear?
A. Well, that wasn’t my affair.
Q. All right. I believe you live in Nashville now?
A. Yes.
Q. When did you move to Nashville?
A. I have lived in Nashville; I have been living there 

for thirty-five years. I was called in Nashville because 
I had had Spanish. They wanted a teacher who had 
Science, but had had Spanish.

Q. I don’t think I quite heard that. You went back to 
Nashville because you though you could teach Spanish 
up there?

A. No. I live in Nashville. I would go to Fayetteville 
to teach and go back to Nashville once a month or 

32 twice a month, and then last year I took institute 
work every Saturday at A & I, and that called for 

me to be in Nashville at A & I from 8:00 to 12:00.
Q. When you went back to Nashville, did you ever 

give the superintendent’s office your address in Nashville?
A. I most certainly did.
Q. You sent them your address?
A. I gave it several times.
Q. After you were discharged?
A. I gave it to Miss Louise the day he discharged me. 

I gave it to her before.
Q. You told her that was where you would be?
Mr. Williams: I object, if your Honor please. She 

stated she gave her the address.
The Court: I don’t see what this has got to do with 

it anyway, Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Stevens: It is my understanding she didn’t leave 

any forwarding address.

— 46a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe



The Court: Are you saying you made an honest effort 
to get in touch with her to offer her another job? Is this 
what you are saying?

Mr. Stevens: No, your Honor. I am trying to find out 
whether that, is true or not.

The Court: She says she left her address there
33 with Miss Louise. I assume Miss Louise is in the 

superintendent’s office.
The Witness: Yes, she is in the office.
The Court: All right, go ahead.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Did you apply in Nashville for 

any teaching position?
A. Yes, but there was no place.
Q. Who did you apply to?
A. I applied to the Board of Education.
Q. In Davidson County?
A. In Davidson County.
Q. Did you make a written application?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You never got any position of teaching or any 

nature ?
A. No.
Q. Did you teach any classes, Spanish classes, or any­

thing like that?
A. Well, I wanted several times I substituted; they 

called me to substitute.
Q. Do you have any idea how much you have made?
A. I really don’t.
Q. This school year?
A. I really don’t.

Q. What is your best estimate?
34 A. My best what?

Q. What is your best estimate?
A. I couldn’t say; I don’t know.
Mr. Williams: That is a matter that can be determined

— 47a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



— 48a —

mathematically. I don’t see why she should try to esti­
mate that.

The Court: Well, as I understand, she is claiming dam­
ages here. He has a right to show what the damage is. 
Objection overruled.

A. I really don’t know.
The Court: Do you have any idea how much you made 

doing part-time teaching?
The Witness: I know I haven’t made $600.00.
The Court: Less than $600.00?
The Witness: At least, could be less than $500.00.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Did you apply for any other kind 

of employment other than teaching?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you apply?
A. Well, I applied various places. I work at the hos­

pital as an attendant, but that is not very good. That is 
only when I can be called they need someone.

Q. You say you did work at the hospital?
35 A. Yes.

Q. How much did you work at the hospital?
A. How much would I get?
Q. Yes.
A. When you work you get $7.00 a shift.
Q. And how many shifts have you worked since you 

left Fayetteville?
A. Oh, I don’t believe I have worked—I don’t think I 

have worked even ten. You don’t get that often.
Q. What other jobs have you held since you left Fayette­

ville?
A. I asked for work at Head Start and I haven’t been 

able to get that. And I asked for work at the Study 
Center.

Q. Who did you apply to for that?
A. Mrs. Anderson.

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



Q. Who?
A. Mrs. Anderson; Mrs. Mary Anderson.
Q. You stated awhile ago what your salary was for the 

year as teaching in Lincoln County High School System. 
Was that your take home money or the gross?

A. No, that is the gross.
Q. Do you know how much your salary was in take 

home money?
36 A. I couldn’t say because I never got a full check 

for the term 65-66.
Q. You don’t know—do you know what deductions— 

I don’t mean what amount, but do you know what the 
deductions would have been, such as Withholding, Social 
Security, and what else?

A. I couldn’t—Social Security, and retirement. There 
are three.

Q. Have you contacted the superintendent’s office of 
Lincoln County Board of Education to apply for a job or 
discussed the matter since you left Fayetteville, Tennessee? 

A. No, sir, I haven’t.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Any redirect?
Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor.

Redirect Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mrs. Rolfe, had you taught before working for Lin­
coln County School System?

A. Yes.
Q. Where?
A. Three years in Selma, Alabama, and three years in 

St. Augustine, Florida.
Q. Have you taught in elementary schools?

37 A. Yes, I have.
Q. So, you have a total of eight years teaching ex­

perience behind you?

— 49a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles 

A. Yes, I have.
Q. Two of which were in Lincoln County!
A. Yes.
Q. And you were on your third year?
A. Yes.
Q. When you went to talk to the superintendent on Sep­

tember 8th, what did he give as a reason for discharg­
ing you ?

A. He said because of the decrease in enrollment, your 
job is abolished as of 3:00 o ’clock today.

Q. Did he make any remark with regard to you being 
a non-tenure teacher, Mrs. Rolfe?

A. I don’t remember him saying anything about that. 
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further?
Mr. Stevens: No further questions.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness, please.
Mr. Williams: I would like to call as our next witness 

Mrs. Peebles.

38 Thereupon------

MRS. BERNICE T. PEEBLES,
a plaintiff herein, was called as a witness on her own be­
half, and having been first duly sworn, was examined and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Please state your name, age and address, please 
ma’am?

A. My name is Bernice T. Peebles, age 27; 105 Whitney 
Avenue, Huntsville, Alabama.

— 50a —



Q. You are a Negro, are you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you a married woman?
A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Peebles, how long have you been living in 

Alabama?
A. I moved there the 12th of February.
Q. I believe you are a citizen of the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you move there the 12th of February?
A. My husband worked there and we figured there 

wasn’t any need of spending extra money to commute 
back and forth, and I didn’t have work.

39 Q. Where were you born?
A. In Fayetteville, Lincoln County.

Q. Where have you lived all your life ?
A. Fayetteville, Lincoln County.
Q. Where were you educated?
A. In Fayetteville.
Q. Are you a college graduate?
A. Yes.
Q. Of a four year accredited college or university?
A. Yes.
Q. Which one?
A. A & I State University in Nashville.
Q. What year?
A. 1960.
Q. What kind of a degree?
A. A B. S. Degree in mathematics.
Q. Are you certified as a teacher in any area?
A. Certified in mathematics.
Q. Do you have a copy of your certificate with you?
A. Yes.
Mr. Williams: With counsel’s permission, we would like 

to have this photocopied and introduced into evidence.

— 51a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



The Court: All right. That will be Exhibit 10, I
40 believe.

(Thereupon the document referred to was marked 
Exhibit 10.)

Q. (By Mr. Williams) What has been your teaching 
experience, Mrs. Peebles!

A. Well, I taught at home at Fayetteville the last two 
years, and was going on my third year.

Q. As a teaching employee of the Lincoln County School 
Board of Education?

A. Yes. And I taught one year at Nashville Christian 
Institute in Nashville, and one year in Gadson, Alabama.

Q. So you had a total of four years teaching experience 
prior to the current school year?

A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Peebles, how were you employed by the Lincoln 

County Board of Education each year?
A. We would receive letters in the Spring of the year 

saying we were elected and if you wished to work in that 
school system, to sign it within a certain length of time, 
and send it back.

Q. Did you sign such a letter in April, 1965 ?
A. Yes.
Q. And returned it to the defendant’s superintend­

ent?
41 A. Yes.

Q. Did you assume on the basis of that letter that 
you were employed and under contract for another year?

A. Yes.
Q. Were you present on any occasion before the end 

of that school year when the superintendent came to the 
school and had a conference with you teachers there?

A. Yes, I was present.
Q. Do you recall what month that was in?
A. It was in May. I don’t remember exactly.

— 52a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



Q. May of 1965?
A. Yes.
Q. What was the subject of that conversation?
A. What would happen to us, the teachers at West 

End.
Q. Of what race were all the teachers at West End?
A. Negroes.
Q. What race were all the students at West End?
A. Negroes.
Q. Were the schools in Lincoln County completely seg­

regated by race at that time?
A. Yeis, sir.
Q. Had you been hearing any rumors about the Board 

planning to desegregate the 65-66 school year?
42 A. Yes.

Q. And you wanted to find out what was going to 
happen to the Negro teachers. Is that correct?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What, if anything, did the superintendent say about 

that?
A. He explained the plan that they had for Lincoln 

County School System.
Q. What kind of a plan did he then say it was?
A. That the students in the County part would be zoned 

to go to respective schools, and the schools in the City 
would have freedom of choice.

Q. Now, were any remarks made about what effect or 
what schools would suffer the effect of that?

A. Yes, Mr. Norman, the superintendent, said West 
End would be affected.

Q. Did he say West End would be the only school 
affected?

A. Yes.
Q. In terms of faculty?
A. I don’t know what he meant, he just said West End 

would be affected I don’t know in the terms of who.

— 53a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



Q. Did lie say any other schools would be affected?
A. No.

43 Q. Did anything happen that summer before the 
beginning of school to lead you to believe that you

had any problem other than to return to school and begin 
the teaching of classes?

A. No, not officially, just rumors, and when the other 
schools started in the county about different students 
going to schools in the county.

Q. Now, did you report for in-service training in 
August?

A. Yes.
Q. Where?
A. I reported the first two days at West End High 

School.
Q. Why?
A. Because there was a statement in the paper to re­

port to your respective schools, and the third day we 
would go to Central High School.

Q. Did anything occur at Central High School with 
regard to teachers?

A. Yes, they introduced the new teachers for the School 
System.

Q. How many did they introduce?
A. Approximately 14. I am not sure of the exact num­

ber.
44 Q. Do you recall how many of those were for 

Central High School?
A. Approximately ten.
Q. Did you bring with you, Mrs. Peebles, your copy 

of a letter you received from the Superintendent in 
September ?

A. Yes.
Q. Now, I believe the beginning of school, registration 

day was on August 23rd, was it not?
A. Yes.

— 54a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



Q. On that date what was the condition of the West 
End High School with regard to presence or loss of 
students ?

A. Well, we lost approximately half of the entire sys­
tem, that is the First through the Twelfth Grades, I 
think approximately one hundred out of the High School. 
I am not sure of the exact number

Q. Did you all just go home then or did you keep 
teaching!

A. Kept teaching.
Q. Were you so instructed to keep teaching?
A. Yes, by the Principal.
Q. How long did you keep teaching?

A. Until September 8th.
45 A. What happened on the 8th?

A. Along the 8th, about 11:00 o ’clock, Mr. Dumas 
came to my room and told me the Superintendent wanted 
to see me at his office.

Q. Did you then go to see the Superintendent?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What happened there?
A. He said my position was abolished as of that after­

noon at 3 :00 p. m. because of decrease in enrollment at 
West End.

Q. Did he say anything about why you were the one 
being discharged?

A. No.
Q. Did he say anything about any comparison of your 

qualifications with those of other teachers in the sys­
tem?

A. No.
Q. Had you ever been admonished or reprimanded for 

anything at all?
A. No, sir.
Q. Any time you were in the system?

— 55a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



A. No, but he did say if I found another job that he 
would be glad to recommend me.

Q. Mr. Norman said that?
A. Yes.

46 Q. Both you and Mrs. Rolfe, as a matter of fact, 
from time to time had been complimented by your 

Principal?
A. Yes.
Q. Was anything further said there between you and 

Mr. Norman?
A. We just had a general discussion about the situa­

tion and he told me possibly a job might be open and 
they would place me there.

Q. While on that and before I forget about it, did he 
ever subsequently offer you a job or offer you anything 
that you considered a job offer?

A. No. Mrs. McAfee called me sometime in February 
and said there might be a possibility of a job open.

Q. February, 1966?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask her what it was?
A. Yes, but she said she thought it was something 

about going into the home, that she didn’t know the exact 
kind of job. I asked her the salary, and she didn’t know 
the exact salary.

Q. Have you ever received anything in writing from 
him about that?

A. No.
Q. Has he ever come to see you about it, that is 

47 the Superintendent?
A. No.

Q. Did you receive this?
The Court: Have you shown it to Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Williams: I beg your pardon.
(Document handed to Mr. Stevens.)

— 56a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



Mr. Williams: Will the Marshal hand this to the wit­
ness?

Q. (By Mr. Williams) Did you receive that from Mr. 
Norman?

A. Yes.
Q. When did you receive that?
A. About Friday—Thursday or Friday after, about 

the 9th or 10th.
Q. Will you introduce that as an exhibit to your tes­

timony ?
The Court: Without objection, let it be marked Exhibit 

No. 11.
(Thereupon the document referred to was marked “ Ex­

hibit No. 11.” )
Q. (By Mr. Williams) You have heard Mrs. Rolfe’s 

testimony with regard to the other persons who were dis­
charged. Do you know that to be true as Mrs. Rolfe, 
you, Mr. Pettigrew and Miss Clark were the only people 

discharged?
48 A. Yes.

Mr. Williams: I would like to hand the witness 
this document.

(Thereupon the Marshall handed the document to the 
witness.)

Q. Mrs. Peebles, have you seen that little booklet before?
A. Yes, this is a hand book.
Q. Ma’am?
A. Yes. This is a hand book.
Q. Does that belong to you?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you get it?
A. It was given to me by the Principal of the school.
Q. Handed to you as being an official copy of the 

rules and regulations of the School System?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you introduce that as the next exhibit, please?

— 57a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



The Court: Without objection, let it be marked Collec­
tive Exhibit No. 12.

(Thereupon the document was marked “Collective Ex­
hibit No. 12.” )

Q. (By Mr. Williams) Now, Mrs. Peebles, direct-
49 ing your attention to a provision in those regula­

tions where it says a teacher would be notified-------
Mr. Williams: May I see that? I am unable to quote 

it from this.
Q. (Continued) ------by notice mailed thirty days before

school closes. You were aware of that provision, were 
you not?

A. Yes.
Q. And you were relying on that, I assume?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever receive any notice either oral or writ­

ten prior to September 8, 1966, of your non-employment 
or dismissal for that school year!

A. No, sir, I didn’t.
Q. What is the racial complexion of the West End 

School at present, both as to elementary and the high 
school!

A. Negroes.
Q. Still all Negroes?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. They retained the Negro teachers they had there, 

did they?
A. Yes.
Q. Except for the ones they discharged and maybe one 

they transferred there?
50 A. Yes.

Q. No white children transferred into West End 
High School?

A. No, not to my knowledge.
Q. Do you know of any schools in the county—well, 

is there any other Negro schools remaining in the county?

— 58a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



A. No.
Q. I believe the defendants closed down three two- 

room Negro schools they had out in the county?
A. Yes.
The Court: Who is teaching Mathematics now at West 

End?
The Witness: I heard the Principal is, but I don’t 

know.
The Court: Do you know who is teaching it at Central 

High School?
The Witness: No. I don’t.
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, I haven’t asked 

her there because it is in those exhibits I pointed out to 
your Honor and I didn’t feel like your Honor would want 
to go over material you already had.

The Court: No. I just thought as a lifelong resi- 
51 dent of Fayetteville that she might know.

Q. (By Mr. Williams) I believe the separation has 
been so complete that you all don’t even know many of the 
white teachers down there, do you?

A. No, I don’t know many.
Q. Have you made efforts to obtain other employment, 

Mrs. Peebles?
A. Yes, but they seem to not have anything open.
Q. I believe you have not been able to get any employ­

ment at all, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. You had been living in Fayetteville and your husband 

travelling to Alabama, commuting back and forth to his 
work; is that correct?

A. Yes.
Q. And after you were fired, you concluded so long as 

you weren’t able to get work that it would be cheaper for 
you for both of you to go on down there for the time 
being ?

— 59a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



— 60a —

Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles

A. Yes.
Q. Mrs. Peebles, do you want your job in Fayetteville, 

Lincoln County?
A. Yes.
Q. Were you doing a good job down there?

A. They said I was.
52 Mr. Williams: That’s all.

The Court: Cross-examine.

Cross-Examination.
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Mrs. Peebles, I will ask you if Miss Marian McAfee 
called you, were you still living in Fayetteville then?

A. Yes; I was still there.
Q. And that was in February?
A. Yes.
Q. A short time before you moved to Huntsville?
A. Yes.
Q. Had you at that time already rented a house in 

Huntsville ?
A. Yes, we had already rented a house.
Q. Already planned to go to Huntsville?
A. Yes.
Q. When she called you, I will ask you if she didn’t! 

tell you, in substance, this, that they had a job available 
they thought you would be interested in, and requested 
that you come in and talk to them about it? Is that about 
what she told you over the phone?

A. No, she told me to call Mr. Norman. She didn’t say 
that there was a job open; she said there was a possi­

bility of a job open.
53 Q. Well, she told you to call Mr. Norman?

A. Yes.
Q. To find out about the job?
A. Yes.



Q. Did you call him?
A. No.
Q. Was that because you had already planned to move 

to Huntsville?
A. No, not because we already planned to move to 

Huntsville, but Mr. Norman said he would contact me 
when he got something that I was qualified to do.

Q. He didn’t contact you any more?
A. No.
Q. And you didn’t contact him after that?
A. No.
Q. Then you moved to Huntsville. Did you apply for 

a job down there?
A. I talked to different people. You talk to the Prin­

cipals down there.
Q. You did talk to the Principal?
A. Talked to different ones, some different people down 

there.
Q. Who did you talk to?

A. There—I don’t remember all the names, I just 
54 got there. There is a preacher there that intro­

duced me to different people.
Q. You talked to the preacher?
A. The preacher introduced me, told me about the 

Principal’s name that you had to contact to see if there 
were openings in the school system.

Q. Did you ever go to any Board of Education, any 
office in Huntsville and apply for a job?

A. No, I didn’t go to the Board of Education because 
you apply to the Principal.

Q. Did you go to the Principal’s office?
A. I called.
Q. You called?
A. Yes.
Q. You never did go see him?

— 61a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



A. No, he didn’t have anything open.
Q. Did you have an application put on file with anyone 

in the school system in Huntsville for a job?
A. No, because he said he would notify me if he had 

something open.
Q. Did you call anyone else other than this one person? 
A. No.

Q. Did you apply for any other kind of a job?
55 A. Yes.

Q. Where?
A. At Northrup. They were looking for programmers, 

wanted some programmers that were experienced.
Q. Where is that?
A. Huntsville.
Q. Where or what is that—a school?
A. No, not a school, an industry like.
Q. Did you file a written application for a job?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that some kind of plant?
A. They programmed different programs for different 

people.
Q. Did you try anywhere else to get a job?
A. No.
Mr. Stevens: I believe that’s all.
The Court: Any redirect?
Mr. Williams: No, your Honor.
The Court: Was it developed how much she would have 

drawn?
Mr. Williams: No, sir.

Redirect Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. What was your annual monthly salary for the
56 term of a year?

A. $415.00 per month.

— 62a —
Testimony of Mrs. Bernice T. Peebles



Mr. Williams: Your Honor, I did not bring this out by 
Mrs. Rolfe.

Q. (By Mr. Williams) You were paid up to the 8th day 
of September, were you not, Mrs. Peebles?

A. Yes.
Q. When I drew this Bill I thought you had not been 

but you all were paid for the three weeks you did work 
during the year?

A. Yes, sir, we were paid.
Mr. Williams: That will be all for this witness.
I would like to put Mrs. Rolfe back on for one second. 
The Court: The witness is excused.
You may just ask Mrs. Rolfe right there.

Thereupon------

MRS. ELVIRA SMITH ROLFE,
was recalled as a witness in her own behalf, and having 
previously been duly sworn, was examined and testified 
as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mrs. Rolfe, I believe—you were paid up to the 
57 8th of September, were you not?

A. Yes, I was.
Q. I believe you are a grass widow, are you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Divorced many years ago?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are your only support, are you not*
A. Yes.
Mr. Williams: Her salary was actually $4200.00, if your 

Honor, please. She had told me $420.00 per month.
The Court: All right.

— 63a —•
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Bolfe



Do you have any questions of either of these witnesses, 
Mr. Stevens!

Mrs. Peebles, you are not a tenure teacher, are you!
Mrs. Peebles: No, sir.
Mrs. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Call your next witness.
Mr. Williams: With the documentary evidence, plain­

tiffs rest, your Honor.
The Court: Do you have any evidence to present, Mr. 

Stevens!
Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor.

58 The Court: We will take a short recess at this time.
(Thereupon a short recess was taken, after which 

court reconvened and the following proceedings were 
had:)

Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, there is one 
item of evidence I requested by subpoena that I didn’t 
discover the defendants had furnished until the recess. 
It pertains to the number of Negroes enrolled, gives the 
names and number of Negroes, and dates of enrollment 
at Central High School, white high school in Fayetteville.

I would like to introduce that as the next exhibit.
The Court: Without objection, let it be marked Collec­

tive Exhibit No. 12, I think it is.
(Thereupon the document referred to was marked “ Col­

lective Exhibit No. 12” .)
All right, Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Stevens: We will call Mr. Norman as a witness at 

this time.

— 64a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira 8. Rolfe



Testimony of Everett C. Norman 

Thereupon------
EVERETT C. NORMAN,

was called as a witness on behalf of the Defend-
59 ants, and after having been first duly sworn, was 

examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. You are Everett C. Norman?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You are Superintendent of Lincoln County Schools? 
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And live in Fayetteville, Tennessee?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Norman, is it true that Lincoln County Board of 

Education did submit a plan for desegregation of schools 
to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was submitted about when?
A. It was probably submitted in March or April of last 

year.
Q. And was approved when?
A. It was approved, I believe, the latter part of August. 
Q. Now, Mr. Norman, what steps did the Board take to 

implement this plan?
A. Well, Mr. Stevens, we have a split session of schools. 

We have some schools starting in July, and the
60 rest of the schools start in August. And going on 

the assumption that Health, Education and Wel­
fare would accept the plan, we proceeded to close some 
of our small Negro schools.

Q. Why did you pick these particular schools?
A. That was a part of the plan to close the three, two- 

teacher elementary Negro schools.
Q. Why did you have split seasons, some schools start­

ing at different times than others?

— 65a —



A. Because the people that live in the rural:—certain 
sections of the rural area need their children for harvest 
vacation in the Fall.

Q. Is that on account of the cotton area?
A. Yes.
Q. The southern part of the County?
A. Yes.
Q. What else did you do to implement this?
A. Well, of course, the plan was worked and re-worked 

several times with the assistance of the man who helps 
with that in the State Department of Education, Mr. 
Robert Sharp, and finally it was acceptable to the State 
Department and we felt that possibly if the State Depart­
ment would accept it, they knew the guide lines under 
which we were to work, then surely the Health, Educa­

tion and Welfare would accept it, and they did.
61 Q. Have you complied with that plan?

A. Yes, sir, we have exceeded the plan.
Q. When you say exceeded, you mean exceeded in favor 

of desegregation?
A. Yes, sir. It was hard to anticipate just what would 

happen when you give students a freedom of choice, you 
have no idea what their thinking would be, so when I 
say that we exceeded what we had anticipated when the 
program was implemented fully, we found that 54 per 
cent of our Negro students that were left in the County 
were in integrated schools, and nine of the 19 colored 
teachers were in integrated schools.

Q. On a population basis what would be the number 
of teachers, colored teachers that you would have in ratio 
of colored pupils?

A. I believe if it were figured out on the proportionate 
basis that we would be due to use 16 colored teachers, 
but we are using 19.

Q. Now, what did you do relative to notifying the par­
ents of the students of this free choice?

— 66a —•
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



A. Well, of course, we ran notices in the paper, that 
was a part of the integration plan, and then the letters 
were mailed to the students, both white and colored stu­

dents, and they were to return those to give us an
62 idea about how many teachers would need to be 

used in each school.
Q. What type of response did you get in those letters 

from parents of colored students?
A. We did not get a letter back.
Q. Is that the reason you say you didn’t know until 

school started where the students would be going?
A. We couldn’t know, and then even after school had 

opened we had colored children that came that wanted to 
transfer into white schools, which we granted.

The Court: Did you have an registration?
The Witness: We had pre-registration, yes, but no 

response from the colored people on that.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Now, you say you gave free 

choice. Does that apply to the entire county?
A. No, sir. Integration plan is composed of two parts. 

It is geographic zoning which applies to the rural areas 
and that is governed chiefly by the transportation system 
and the schools that are located there. Then those living 
within the City limits of Fayetteville were the people 
who had the freedom of choice. They could go to either 
of the County Schools that they desired to.

Q. Now, a child living in the Petersburg area, did he 
have freedom of choice?

A. Lynchburg.
63 Q. No, Petersburg.

A. No.
Q. Where did he have to go?
A. He had to go to school at Petersburg.
Q. Did that apply equally to white or colored?
A. Yes, sir.
The Court: Is Petersburg in Lincoln County?

— 67a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



The Witness: Partially, and partially in Marshall 
County.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) The other schools outside of the 
City, was there any distinction made between the Negro 
and whites, or did all in that area have to go to the school 
for that area!

A. That’s right. There is no distinction.
Q. And there was no, as far as the Board is concerned, 

was there any segregation between any of the pupils re­
quired by your Board!

A. No, sir.
Q. In the County!
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, how many students did Lincoln County lose 

for the school year 1965-1966!
A. Are you talking about all students!

Q. All students for the whole county!
64 A. Our records show that we had a decrease in 

enrollment in Lincoln County of approximately 200 
students as compared to last year’s enrollment.

Q. What was the reason for that?
A. Well, of course, there are various reasons. We had 

some people that moved out, and then, of course, you had 
some other counties, surrounding counties that were send­
ing Negro students into our county for their education. 
And then they implemented their integration plan which 
would or did pull these Negro students back into their 
county system. Moore County being one; Marshall County 
being another; Giles County had a few students who 
walked across the line and went to our schools, and then, 
I believe there were three from Ardmore, Alabama.

Q. Who had previously come to your school, but after 
the beginning of the year 1965-66 they went to Ardmore?

A. That’s right.
Q. What steps were taken relative to teachers? Were 

the teachers at West End handled exactly like they were 
at every other school in the county?

— 68a—-
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Testimony of Everett C. Norman 

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what was that procedure in the Spring of 

1965?
A. We, according to the State Law, we are to elect

65 teachers thirty days before the expiration of the 
school year, and which we try to do and try to fill

all the positions that we know we are going to have at 
that time. Sometimes it is not possible because teachers 
have not always been plentiful, but they are more plentiful 
now than they have been.

Mr. Williams: I didn’t understand that last. Did he 
say political?

The Court: Plentiful.
Mr. Williams: Plentiful—oh!
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) What did you do in that respect? 

You say that is what is required?
A. We did that and notified the teachers of their elec­

tion.
Q. And the plaintiff was among the teachers so noti­

fied?
A. Yes, sir, that’s right.
Q. Now, following that, it has been stated that you em­

ployed some new teachers. Is that true?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did you employ some twelve to fourteen new 

teachers ?
A. Because we had that many positions that needed 

filling; most of those were elementary positions.
The Court: How many did you actually employ?

66 The Witness: Fourteen.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Was that before the beginning 

of the 1965-66 school year?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they employed and were the plaintiffs also 

employed ?
A. Yes.

— 69a —



Mr. Williams: I tried not to lead, if your Honor please. 
I  object to counsel leading the witness.

The Court: I  don’t think you were too successful, but 
Mr. Stevens don’t you lead.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) What I am trying to get to, was 
there any difference between their status at the point 
these new teachers and the old teachers once you em­
ployed them, the new ones!

A^ Well, of course, you are always obligated to take 
care of your tenure teachers first.

Q. That is required!
A. That is required by State law, and then those teach­

ers that are non-tenure teachers are all on the same basis.
Q. When did these schools out in the county that 

opened in July, when did they start!
A. I believe it was the third Monday in July.

67 Q. When did the schools in Fayetteville, Central 
High and West End start!

A. The third Monday in August.
Q. Now, after the third Monday in August, how long 

was it until you could have a pretty good idea of how 
many students would be at West End; how many at 
Central; and how many at the other high schools!

A. Well, I would say some ten to twelve days, school 
days.

Q. Why was it that the plaintiffs were dismissed at 
the time they were dismissed!

A. The Board of Education met at its regular meeting 
in September and reviewed the whole integration pro­
gram and then it proceeded to take the necessary steps 
to correct its teaching load to the amount of positions 
that it had.

Q. In that, did you consider the number of pupils at 
each school, and how many teachers you needed at each 
school!

A. Yes.

— 70a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. Did you have to consider anything else?
A. Yes, sir, we had some teachers that we transferred 

at that time in order to fill the positions that we could. 
Q. Why was it you couldn’t transfer the plaintiffs!
A. We did not have any positions for which these 

teachers were certified.
68 Q. I will ask you whether or not Mrs. Rolfe or 

anyone else ever informed you of the fact she had
a certificate to teach in elementary grades?

A. No. That information came to me today, here. I did 
not know she held an elementary certificate.

Q. She never did tell you that?
A. No.
Q. And the department didn’t write you that?
A. We did not have any records to that effect.
Q. Why was it Mrs. Rolfe and Mrs. Peebles lost their 

jobs?
A. Because the enrollment at West End School would 

not justify as many positions as we had teachers elected 
there.

Q. Why was it those two rather than somebody else?
A. Nearly all of our teachers there at West End High 

School, I would say a great portion of them are on tenure 
and, of course, there were two of those that were tenure 
teachers that we couldn’t use there and we transferred 
out, and we transferred Mrs. Curtis to an elementary 
school that had no Negro students in the school at all.

At the time we were not able to transfer Mrs. Clark. 
She was on tenure, but as soon as an opening occurred, 
which occurred at Flintville Elementary School, we trans­
ferred or placed Mrs. Clark at Flintville Elementary 

School.
69 Mr. Pettigrew and Mrs. Peebles and Mrs. Rolfe 

were the only three we were not able to take care
of immediately.

Q. What did you later do with Mr. Pettigrew?

— 71a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



A. Mr. Pettigrew was hired as our NYC director and 
worked out of the Comity Office.

Q. Works out of your office!
A. Yes.
Q. How does his salary there compare to what he was 

getting when he lost the job at West End!
A. His salary is comparable.
Mr. Williams: I didn’t hear that last.
The Court: He said his salary is comparable.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Had you ever in the past found it 

necessary to dismiss teachers in the same manner as these 
plaintiffs were!

A. Yes.
Q. Colored!
A. Yes.
Q. White!
A. Yes.
Q. Have you had that problem since this!
A. Yes.

Q. For what reason!
70 A. Because of the lack of enrollment.

Q. Mr. Norman, I will ask you whether or not since 
Mrs. Peebles has been dismissed, if I am using the right 
term, has there been any openings that she was qualified 
to hold in any teaching position in Lincoln County!

A. No, sir, other than the elementary now. We did not 
know about her elementary.

Q. You are talking about Mrs. Peebles!
A. Mrs. Peebles, yes there was one.
Q. One position became vacant that she could have 

filled!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why wasn’t she given that position!
A. She was considered for it. There were two appli­

cants. Mrs. Peebles’ name came before the Board and a 
Mrs. Crawford’s name came before the Board.

— 72a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. Was Mrs. Peebles there?
A. No.
Q. Had she made application?
A. No, nothing other than I had told her------•
Mr. Williams: That is objected to, your Honor.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Why did you consider Mrs. Peebles 

if she was not applying, not asking for the job?
71 A. Well, she was one of our teachers we were try­

ing to place if we could.
Q. All right, go ahead.
A. The two applicants were weighed very carefully at 

length by the Board and it was decided that Mrs. Craw­
ford’s qualifications were a little better than Mrs. Peebles. 

Q. In what way?
A. More years of experience, and she was a graduate 

of Peabody College and had taught some modern math, 
which we were actually looking for at that time.

Q. What kind of a graduate was she?
A. Well, Peabody gives her an excellent rating.
Mr. Williams: I object to that, if your Honor please. 
The Court: Objection overruled. He is showing why 

the Board did what it did.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Did you consider transcript of her 

record in college?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of record did she have?
Mr. Williams: I object to that, if your Honor please. 

If he wants to introduce evidence of the qualifications of 
this teacher, then he ought to introduce competent evi­

dence, not his testimony.
72 The transcript itself is the best evidence.

The Court: What is the basis of your objection?
Mr. Williams: My objection, if your Honor please, is 

that this testimony is objectionable as not being the best 
evidence of what this teacher’s qualifications were.

— 73a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



The Court: Objection overruled. The Court thinks it is 
very material as to why the Board did what it did, and 
this is a professional either hired by the Board, or elected 
by the people—I don’t know which—I think his testimony 
is very relevant. Objection overruled. Go ahead.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) What did her transcript records 
show?

A. I believe on the course in Calculus, one course in 
Calculus, Mrs. Peebles had had to repeat that course sev­
eral times. I don’t know, hut some three or four times.

The Court: May I interrupt you at this point just so I 
will understand. This other lady’s name was Mrs. Craw­
ford?

The Witness: Yes.
The Court: What was her first name?
The Witness: Martha.

The Court: Martha Crawford. Was she, had she 
73 been or was she in your system at that time?

The Witness: Yes, sir, she was in our system last
year.

The Court: Last year?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: Why was she not re-elected?
The Witness: She had a home condition and it cleared 

up and she was available.
The Court: Go ahead.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) She a tenure teacher?
A. I believe so.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, may I have the 

use of some of those exhibits while he is testifying, if the 
Court is not using them, especially the first seven.

The Court: Yes.
A. (By Mr. Stevens) Did you make the selection en­

tirely upon the qualifications and the seniority, or did you 
consider race?

— 74a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Mr. Williams: Objected to as being leading and sug­
gestive.

The Court: Objection overruled.
Mr. Williams: I respectfully except to the ruling.

74 The Court: You have an automatic exception.
Q. What was your answer!

A. We did not consider race at all.
Q. Did you have any other positions available that 

Mrs. Peebles might have filled!
A. Yes, under the elementary and secondary education 

act, which was implemented the 15th day of February, we 
had some openings for certified teachers and we con­
tacted or I had the instruction supervisor to contact 
Mrs. Peebles, and I had instructed her to contact her to 
tell her that we had a position that I thought she could 
fill, and for her to come in to see us about it. She relates 
to me that she did call Mrs. Peebles and told her of the 
position, and------

Mr. Williams: I object to this hearsay, about what 
somebody else told him.

The Court: Objection sustained—well, I don’t know, 
this is his employee. Objection overruled. He has a right 
to say what report he got back from his employee.

A. She did not report.
Q. Who else was considered for that job and got it!
A. Another colored lady did make application for it, 

and was hired.
75 Q. How did the salary for that job compare with 

the salary of Mrs. Peebles, which she was drawing,
or would have drawn as a teacher!

A. It would have been her regular salary.
Q. Mr. Norman, without taking too much time and 

going into too much detail, just tell us very generally 
the extent of integration of Lincoln County School Sys­
tem, generally!

— 75a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Mr. Williams: Objection to that, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained. The Court is not in­

terested in that.
Any way, I don’t think what we are dealing with here 

is integration; it is desegregation. That would be a 
technical term, but the Court thinks there is a great dif­
ference in it. In fact, Mr. Williams and I have had some 
right pointed discussions about the difference. I don’t 
think the Court is interested in that. You filed your plan 
of desegregation and it is exhibited here. We are inter­
ested in whether or not these two particular teachers were 
discharged in the implementation of that program solely 
because of their race, or whether it was for some other 
reason.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Mr. Norman, are there any 
76 positions in Lincoln County School System now 

available for which either of these plaintiffs are 
qualified ?

A. No, sir.
Q. Are there any funds which you can pay them with­

out discharging some other teacher from their jobs?
A. No.
Mr. Williams: That is objected to, if your Honor please, 

because if the plaintiffs establish they were wrongfully 
discharged in violation of their constitutional rights, then 
the question of whether or not, or where the defendants 
will get the funds to pay them, is entirely a government 
question.

The Court: Objection sustained. The Court agrees with 
that concept.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Have any teachers for the year 
1965-66 been selected, or discharged, or employed, based 
on race?

A. No.
Q. That applies to the plaintiffs as well as all the others?

— 76a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Testimony of Everett C. Norman 

A. That’s right.
Q. I will ask you if you now have a math teacher of 

any less qualifications than Mrs. Peebles now hold-
77 ing a job in the Lincoln County School System? 

Mr. Williams: The question is objected to as calling
for a conclusion.

The Court: Yes. I don’t think you can get into this, 
Mr. Stevens. You can get into a comparison, and the 
Court will let you do it, as to why Mrs. Crawford was 
chosen rather than Mrs. Peebles, and that sort of thing, 
but the Court thinks this would be too conclusionary, give 
the witness too much latitude in expressing his opinion. 
Objection sustained.

Mr. Stevens: Well, your Honor, this may be a similar 
question. Maybe you will see what I am getting at.

Q. Do you have a math teacher on your payroll now 
who has less seniority than Mrs. Peebles?

A. Only one.
Q. You have one teacher?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That has less seniority than she?
A. Yes.
Q. How do they compare as to qualifications?
Mr. Williams: Here, again, I object.

The Court: Because he brought in the seniority
78 the Court is going to permit this. Objection over­

ruled.
A. I would say, Mr. Stevens, he has an excellent record 

from Middle Tennessee State University, and this was one 
of the schools that started in July.

Q. So the school where he is, he started teaching and 
was already there at the time Mrs. Peebles was discharged? 

A. That’s right.
Q. I will ask you if you have a science teacher, or a 

teacher with Mrs. Rolfe’s qualifications as a teacher now 
on the payroll, who has less seniority than Mrs. Rolfe?

— 77a —



A. I don’t believe so.
The Court: When you answer that question that way, 

are you including her elementary qualifications?
The Witness: No, sir, I am not.
The Court: You should include that.
A. (By Mr. Stevens) Can you answer the question rela­

tive to elementary?
A. No, I don’t. Today is the first time I have known 

she held an elementary certificate.
The Court: Well, you hired fourteen new teachers and 

said most of them are in elementary schools. How many 
of them were?

The Witness: I believe eight of them were.
79 The Court: So at least eight of them would have 

less seniority than Mrs. Rolfe. Is that right?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: All right.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Those eight teachers, are they 

now on a signed contract?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know of any reason to discharge any of 

them?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you had an opportunity to check their quali­

fications and compare them to Mrs. Rolfe as an elemen­
tary teacher?

A. No, I have not.
Q. And that is because you didn’t know she was cer­

tified?
A. That’s right.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Before you cross-examine, Mr. Williams, 

I want to clarify two or three things in Mr. Norman’s 
testimony.

Mr. Norman, is it your testimony, and does the Court

— 78a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



understand then correctly that it was a policy of the 
defendants, including yourself, to try to, by

80 transfer or otherwise, to take care of all of your 
teachers when the change was necessary because

of the reduction in attendance?
The Witness: Yes.
The Court: Does the Court also understand that it was 

your policy and policy of the defendants to give consid­
eration to comparative seniority in making your deci­
sions?

The Witness: We try to do that, yes, sir, especially 
where tenure is involved.

The Court: Talking about non-tenure. Tenure is a mat­
ter you don’t have much to do with; that is the law of 
the State?

The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: The State governs that?
The Witness: Yes, sir.
The Court: You testified, as I understand, that all non­

tenure teachers were on the same basis?
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: But you mean by that so far as the law is 

concerned?
The Witness: Yes, sir.

The Court: Now, was it your policy as to non-
81 tenure teachers to recognize seniority in deciding 

who would be kept or who would be dismissed?
The Witness: No, sir, all non-tenure teachers are treated 

as new teachers for employment.
The Court: I am asking you if it was your policy, if 

you had two teachers apparently equally qualified and 
neither one of them had tenure, and you had to keep one 
and had to let one go, would you not then keep the one 
that had the more seniority?

The Witness: Not necessarily.

— 79a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



The Court: That was not your policy!
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: Now, one other point that has escaped me 

at the moment that I wanted to ask you about, perhaps 
it will occur to me later.

You may cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. What date was your plan approved by the Depart­
ment of Health, Education and Welfare!

A. I believe it was the 30th of August, but I am not 
sure.

Q. As a matter of fact, it was the 31st of August, as 
alleged in the Complaint, was it not!

82 A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of 1965!

A. Yes.
Q. Now then, at that time you had the plaintiffs in this 

case and the other Negro teachers had been employed 
and had been teaching a week!

A. That’s right.
Q. But at the beginning of that week you had thirty 

odd some Negro children transfer from West End High 
School to Central High School alone, didn’t you, accord­
ing to your own exhibits, on August 23rd!

A. Yes.
Q. How many more have you had to transfer out to 

these High Schools in the County by reason of being 
zoned to the County High Schools, approximately how 
many!

A. In all of the other high schools!
Q. Yes, sir, on the first day of school!
A. On the first day of school! I don’t know the exact 

number, Mr. Williams.

— 80a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. Would you say that Mrs. Peebles was approximately 
correct when she said about a hundred or more?

A. High School students.
Q. And most of those were lost at West End, and most

of those were lost on the first day, were they not?
83 A. Many of them were, yes.

Q. Wouldn’t you say most of them, in view of the 
fact you yourself say thirty-one transferred to Central, 
obviously these zoned to the County High School went 
there the first day, didn’t they?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. They didn’t have any option?
A. No, sir.
Q. And the other County pulled theirs out the first day, 

didn’t they?
A. Yes.
Q. So that all except that ten you show that registered 

late were out of West End High School on the 23rd day 
of August?

A. That’s right.
Q. So then you knew on that date that there was a 

reduction of enrollment at West End that could not be 
remedied, didn’t you?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why didn’t you tell H. E. W. before they approved 

your plan that you were going to discharge four Negro 
teachers at West End High School; why did you wait until 
the 31st, a whole week until after they approved your plan?

A. Why?
84 Q. Yes.

A. Because school had already started before they 
approved it.

Q. Sir?
A. School had already started before they approved it.
Q. That is what I am driving at. That first day of school

— 81a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



disclosed you were going to have to discharge some teach­
ers and you knew you were going to discharge these 
Negroes too, didn’t you! Isn’t that true, Mr. Norman?

A. I knew we had more teachers than we had students 
to justify, yes, sir.

Q. But you knew you were going to discharge Negroes, 
didn’t you?

A. That is the school the attendance was low in, sir; yes, 
sir.

Q. Mr. Norman, I ask you whether or not back in May 
you didn’t have a meeting with the Negroes over at West 
End High School!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is true just as these ladies testified, you told 

them West End was the one that was going to be hurt, 
didn’t you?

A. Chances were very good that it would be.
85 Q. Will you then explain to the Court why you em­

ployed some twenty odd new white teachers and as­
signed them to vacancies in July and August when you 
knew that there was going to be some vacancies in West 
End High School and these teachers would have to lose 
their jobs?

A. Most of these teachers were employed in April.
Q. Sir, I refer you to your own records—that is why I 

asked you for it here—I will ask you to take this and 
count your new teachers on there that you list as new 
teachers and ask if some twenty odd new teachers weren’t 
employed by you during that summer in July and August, 
and right on up through December, 1965, new white 
teachers ?

A. Everywhere these names appear, giving a date, we 
employed a teacher on that date, yes, sir.

Q. And I will ask you to briefly go over that, and see if 
you don’t agree that there are approximately twenty—my

— 82a —■
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



count on it—approximately twenty of them who was 
discharged—who were employed on or after August 2, 
1965?

A. A number of them were; yes, sir.
Q. May I have that back, please, sir?
(Document returned to counsel.)
And one of those who was employed on the 20th day of 

August, just three days before school began, was Mr. Gor­
don Wood. That is correct, isn’t it?

86 A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he didn’t have any tenure at all, hadn’t 

taught in your school systems a single day, had he?
A. No, sir.
Q. And he was employed to teach Solid Geometry, Trig­

onometry and Algebra I at Central High School, was he 
not?

A. That’s right.
Q. Now then, we come along and on December 6, 1965, 

after you have discharged this plain lift on the theory that 
you don’t have a vacancy, and you employ Miss Martha 
Crawford, and she, you say she had taught in the system 
previously ?

A. Yes.
Q. How long previously?
A. I don’t know exactly, but I would say some two to 

three years.
Q. She had been out of the School System some two to 

three years?
A. No, not out, in—the School System.
Q. Your records show one year. She had been teaching 

one year. How long had she been out? You show her 
here as being employed on December 6, 1965?

A. As I stated to the Judge a few minutes ago, she 
dropped out at the end of last year because of a family 
problem.

— 83a—•
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. All right. So that then as of the date that you
87 discharged Mrs. Peebles, you had a vacancy over 

at Central High School in Mathematics, didn’t you,
even without any Negro students; you had a vacancy at 
that time, didn’t you?

A. The date that we discharged Mrs. Peebles?
Q. Yes.
A. No, sir.
Q. Who was filling that place that Miss Crawford was 

employed for on December 6th?
A. Mr. Woods.
Q. Don’t you still have Mr. Woods there?
A. No, sir.
Q. Mr. Woods has gone and is no longer there?
A. That’s right.
Q. I thought you furnished me a list of the teachers 

who were presently employed in the school system?
A. I believe your statement said who had been employed 

for the year ’65-66. Mr. Woods was employed, but he 
resigned.

Q. All right. Now then, you said also you employed Mr. 
Woods to teach from the beginning to take the job that 
would ordinarily have gone to Mrs. Peebles, and then 
when he resigned, you re-employed Miss Crawford?

A. I don’t see where Mrs. Peebles fits into it.
Q. Mrs. Peebles wouldn’t fit into it because she

88 was assigned over at West End High. Is that cor­
rect?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, sir. Let me ask you this. Did you know 

back in May about this policy that you say you have that 
non-tenure teachers were the first to go?

A. Yes.
Q. And you knew back in May that you don’t make any 

distinction between non-tenure teachers, you treat one just

— 84a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



the same as the other even though one has had three years 
and one has had only one year?

A. Yes, sir, that’s right.
Q. And you knew then at the time you employed Mr. 

Gordon Wood on the 20th of August, 1965, that you had 
a vacancy in Central High School for Mathematics?

A. Yes, sir, that is what we employed him for.
Q. You are not saying that Mrs. Peebles wasn’t an ac­

ceptable Mathematics teacher, are you?
A. No, sir.
Q. You wouldn’t have employed her to teach these 

Negro children if she hadn’t been a competent teacher, 
would you?

A. That’s right.
Q. Now then, will you explain, sir, if you can, why it 

is you did not go ahead and just employ Mrs. 
89 Peebles at Central High School and take care of 

that vacancy you had every reason to believe would 
occur at West End High School?

A. The Board had not reviewed the integration program 
at that time to see just the positions we would have at 
West End and those that would not exist.

Q. Mr. Norman, is it true, as the plaintiffs testified, they 
don’t actually sign the contract until their first pay day?

A. We require them to sign the contract before they 
receive their first pay check, yes, sir.

Q. Now then, on the 23rd day of August, 1965, when it 
turned out that you knew the enrollment was going to be 
below A. D. A. standards at West End High School, can 
you state positive whether or not Gordon Wood had 
signed a contract on that day?

A. No, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, he probably had not?
A. Probably had not, yes.
Q. As a matter of fact, these plaintiffs never got to sign

— 85a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



a contract, did they; they were discharged on September 
8th?

A. That’s right. They didn’t sign a contract.
Q. Will you explain to the Court why you discharged— 

let me put it this way: In discharging these plain-
90 tiffs, did you actually make a comparison of them, 

of their qualifications and tenure with anybody, and
length of service with any other teachers in the system?

A. Are you speaking of West End High School or just 
the system in general?

Q. All right, did you make a comparison with anybody 
in West End High School?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you did not make a comparison with anyone else 

in the system, is that correct?
A. That’s right.
Q. And you did not do that because West End High 

School is a Negro High School, is that correct?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why didn’t you do it? Oh, that is the reason you 

did not do it?
A. That’s right.
The Court: Are you sure that everybody understands 

each other here?
Are you saying the reason you did not compare these 

teachers with any other teachers in your system outside 
of West End High School was because West End High 
School was an all Negro school. Is that what you are 

saying?
91 The Witness: No, sir.

The Court: That is the way your answer came out. 
The Witness: No, sir.
The Court: I thought there was a misunderstanding.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Well, what did you mean, Mr. 

Norman?

— 86a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



A. I mean that we compared the teachers at West End 
for the jobs that were there. We had some fifteen or six­
teen teachers there and we wound up with eleven teaching 
positions, and then the Board took a look at the people that 
were there and the curriculum that they could offer, and 
tried to fit the teachers into the jobs that were there.

Q. Let’s ask it another way, Mr. Norman.
It is true you have been operating a completely segre­

gated school system?
A. Up until this year, yes.
Q. Explain why you decided to keep West End High 

School segregated as to faculty in the 1965-66 school year?
A. Why we decided to do that?
Q. Yes.
A. There is no particular reason for it.
Q. At any rate, you did not see fit to assign any white 

teachers to West End High School, did you?
92 A. That’s right.

Q. And there are still none assigned?
A. That’s right.
Q. And there are no white children assigned, are there, 

or attending there?
A. They have the freedom of choice.
Q. Yes, sir, but there are none attending there?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now then, Mr. Norman, you are an educator, are 

you not?
A. I think so.
Q. I know that is kind of a silly question. When people 

ask whether I am a lawyer, I get insulted, but I just 
wanted to get it into the record. You do consider your­
self an expert educator?

A. Not an expert, an educator.
Q. Do you keep up fairly well with developments in 

this field?

— 87a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Testimony of Everett C. Norman 

A. Yes, sir.
Q. I presume you are aware that the general experience 

has been that no white children transfer into Negro 
schools under freedom of choice plan. You are aware of 
that, are you not?

A. Yes.
93 Q. So that you had no reason to expect any white 

children would transfer into—based on experience,
that any white children would transfer in to West End 
High School, did you?

A. No.
Q. And you also knew, did you not, Mr. Norman, that 

the absence of any white children there, that the likeli­
hood of the absence of white children in West End High 
School would be increased if you kept the faculty segre­
gated. You knew that too, didn’t you?

A. I don’t know that I understand your question.
Q. Didn’t you know that if white children were re­

luctant to go to West End High School they would be 
more reluctant if you kept the faculty all Negroes?

A. We didn’t think of it in that light.
Q. You didn’t think of it in that light. All right.
The Court: Excuse me, Mr. Williams, and let me ask 

one thing, before it escapes my attention.
Would you compare for the Court the physical facilities 

at West End High School and Central High School?
The Witness: I would say that Central High

94 School’s over all facilities would be better. We have 
some new facilities at West End High School that

are probably better than anything that they have at 
Central High School, speaking of the new Library in 
particular.

The Court: What are the comparative ages of the 
physical plants?

The Witness: Central High School was built in 1956, 
the new building. The old building burned. West End, 
I believe, was started as a school in 1948.

•— 88a—■



The Court: All right, Mr. Williams.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) While we are on that subject, 

let me ask you this: How many—you have furnished that 
information already. West End High School has a total 
of one hundred and ninety—no, the whole school has a 
total of 196 students. Is that right?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many of those are in High School?
A. I believe there are 56 in the lower six grades.
Q. In the High School department, nine to twelve?
A. We consider that school on a 6/6 basis, the first six 

grades considered the elementary, and the upper six 
grades are high school.

95 Q. Well, actually, your figures here show if you 
figure it as I would figure it, on a four year high 

school basis, is Central High School a four year high 
school?

A. Yes.
Q. Now then, the top four grades of West End High 

School have in the Ninth, 44; in the Tenth, 36, which 
makes 80. In the Eleventh, 26, which makes 106; and 
in the Twelfth, 29, which makes 135 students. Now then, 
Mr. Norman, according to the State of Tennessee Educa­
tional Standards published by the Department of Educa­
tion, can you give an adequate high school education to 
a child in a high school with that kind of an enrollment?

A. Well, it is not the best education practice, however, 
we have one high school with less than that.

Q. However, at the time you assigned all these negro 
teachers there in September, in August, 1965, even then 
you didn’t have but a couple of hundred there, did you?

A. That’s right.
Q. State whether or not it is true that under State law 

you can’t even start a high school with less than 300 
pupils without getting a waiver?

A. That’s correct.

— 89a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. And state whether or not it isn’t true the Tennessee 
State Department of Education says that the minimum 

enrollment you ought to have in a high school to
96 afford an adequate education for children is ap­

proximately 500?
A. That’s right.
Q. And how many students do you have in Central 

High School?
A. We have 800.
Q. You said Lincoln County had a decrease in enroll­

ment of approximately 200 students at the beginning of 
the year?

A. Yes.
Q. How many of those students were white students? 
A. I do not know.
Q. Approximately?
A. I would say two-thirds.
Q. How many white teachers did you discharge after 

the beginning of the school year?
A. One I remember.
Q. Was that Mr. Crawford, the man that resigned?
A. No, that was Mrs. Westman. Are you talking about 

elementary or high school?
Q. Either?
A. Well, we dismissed one elementary teacher the fifth 

day of January.
Q. You didn’t discharge any white teachers at all in 

September of 1965, did you?
97 A. No, sir.

Q. And you haven’t discharged a single white High 
School teacher, have you?

A. No, sir.
Q. And you discharged no white elementary school 

teachers until January, and why was she discharged?
A. Because of lack of enrollment.
Q. Lack of enrollment in what school?

— 90a —
Testimony of Everett G. Norman



A. Lincoln Elementary School.
Q. Her name was what now?
A. Mrs. Westman.
Q. Is she on this list?
A. I don’t know.
Q. Now then, Mrs. Westman, the teacher you dis­

charged, had been just employed that year, hadn’t she?
A. That’s right.
Q. So you do consider—it is true that you consider the 

length of time of non-tenure teachers, isn’t it; where race 
isn’t involved, you consider it, don’t you?

A. No, sir.
Q. Well, why didn’t you discharge some of these non­

tenure teachers, some of the other non-tenure teachers in 
Lincoln schools?

A. It was the thinking of the Board that this 
98 school program could be carried on better with the 

teachers that were left there.
Q. Did you make any comparison though?
A. In studying which teacher to dismiss?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. But you excluded the length of the person’s employ­

ment from the length of time they were employed there 
from consideration altogether?

A. Well, I wouldn’t say altogether.
Q. So you do consider it to some extent ?
A. It is bound to figure in.
Q. Yes, sir. Now, what other factors do you consider?
A. The grades that would be most affected; what com­

bination of grades you would have to use in dismissing a 
teacher; whether or not you could move some students 
to the next teacher above, or to the next teacher below, 
those things are considered.

Q. So that as a matter of fact with regard to the teacher 
herself, the main thing you consider is the length of time,

Testimony of Everett C. Norman



and you do consider in addition to that some other factors 
connected with the school itself with regard to the num­

ber of grades involved, and that sort of thing?
99 A. There are many factors to be considered.

Q. Well, I want to know what they are, Mr. 
Norman.

A. I am trying to point them out here.
Q. Suppose that you had a vacancy—suppose you had 

a reduction in enrollment in two schools and one of the 
teachers, the reduction was sufficient, however, to cause 
a discharge of one teacher, how would you do that, Mr. 
Norman?

A. The reduction of one teacher?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. In a school?
Q. Let’s say you had enough reduction in enrollment in 

X  school that the State said, “ You are just short of the 
ADA requirements, it won’t support the number of teach­
ers you have,”  and you likewise have a reduction in en­
rollment in another school, but—I guess that is impossible, 
isn’t it? What I am saying is, suppose you had a reduc­
tion in enrollment as between two schools that would jus­
tify the loss—yes, it is possible; yes, it is too, that would, 
because the State figures the ADA is based on the total 
enrollment in your system, doesn’t it?

A. No, sir.
Q. With regard to school?
A. Each school stands on its own.

Q. With regard to State ADA?
100 A. That’s right, yes, sir. I wish it were on the 

system.
Q. Then you are saying as long as you meet the mini­

mum standards within the school you can main a certain 
number of teachers in that school?

A. Yes, sir.

— 92a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. You don’t employ teachers for a particular school, 
do you, sir!

A. No, sir.
Q. You employ them for the school system?
A. That’s right.
Q. I am glad you unlike the Decatur County School 

Board are taking the position that the State Law requires 
you not to discharge tenure teachers because they are tak­
ing the position now that they can bump tenure teachers, 
Negro tenure teachers out of the school system and em­
ploy new white teachers. You say that isn’t true?

A. That isn’t true in our system.
Q. What is the state law; what is the opinion of edu­

cators about the operation of the tenure law any way, 
that it does or does not afford a tenure teacher a right to 
come ahead of a non-tenure teacher when there is a reduc­
tion in enrollment?

A. It does.
Q. It does, in your opinion. All right. Isn’t it true, 

101 Mr. Norman, that out of all these Negro teachers 
that you are bragging about that you retained in the 

school system only one of them is a non-tenure teacher?
A. Only one is a non-tenure teacher?
Q. Yes.
A. Mrs. McDonald.
Q. Mrs. Mary McDonald is the only one that is a non­

tenure teacher and she was teaching at one of the two- 
room schools, wasn’t she?

A. Yes.
Q. And she has been kind of a pet of the School Board 

or superintendent, has she not?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Close friend, related to Mr. Dumas, the Principal of 

the West End High School?
A. Not that I know of.

— 93a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. You didn’t know about that!
A. No.
Q. But at any rate she is the only non-tenure Negro 

teacher you retained!
A. That’s right.
Q. And actually, in view of the fact you have only Ne­

gro teacher assigned to the West End High School, the 
plaintiffs never got a chance to have their quali-

102 fications or length of service compared with any 
white teachers in the school system, did they!

A. They did last year.
Q. sir!
A. They did last year.
Q. What year are you talking about!
A. That is what we are talking about, when they were 

employed last year.
Q. I thought you said—oh, when the plaintiffs were re­

elected in April last year, you are saying their qualifica­
tions were favorably considered!

A. Yes.
Q. Along with white candidates for employment?
A. That’s right.
Q. Now, then you assigned them, re-assigned them to 

the West End High School, didn’t you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You also say when that enrollment dropped you com­

pared their qualifications only with the Negro teachers 
at West End High School. Is that correct?

A. To find out what teachers would be left there; yes. 
Q. So you afforded them an opportunity to have their 

qualifications compared only with Negro teachers
103 at West End High School?

A. That’s right.
Q. But as a matter of fact, isn’t it true, Mr. Norman, 

that you did not actually compare their qualifications 
with anybody, but you simply dismissed them because

— 94a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



they were non-tenure teachers and, therefore, sitting ducks 
for you there?

A. We could not dismiss those tenure teachers.
Q. Yes, and isn’t it true the minutes of the Board, that 

you stipulated are correct here, reflect that on the 7th day 
day of September, 1965, you recommended that the three 
positions of the three non-tenure teachers, Henry Petti­
grew, Elvira Rolfe and Bernice Peebles be abolished due 
to lack ADA after integration?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. If they had been tenure teachers you wouldn’t have 

done that, would you?
A. Had there been only enough positions to take care 

of less than the number of tenure teachers, some of the 
tenure teachers would have had to go.

Q. Well, no white non-tenure teachers had to have his 
determination whether he would be discharged because of 
the loss of enrollment, had to have it determined on the 
basis of the number of tenure teachers in a school though, 

did he?
104 A. One person after that, the one I referred to in 

Lincoln Elementary.
Q. But you had loss of enrollment in September, 1965, 

didn’t you? Didn’t you tell the Court you had approxi­
mately 200 loss of enrollment?

A. Yes.
Q. And you say approximately two-thirds of that was 

white ?
A. Yes, sir, that’s right.
Q. But we wind up with three Negro teachers being the 

ones that were discharged?
A. That’s true.
Q. Now, what effort did you make—do you deny that 

Mrs. Rolfe had on file at your office a copy of her ele­
mentary teaching certificate?

A. I had never seen that.

— 95a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. But you don’t deny that it is there, do you!
A. Well, I have not seen it. I was not aware of it.
Q. If I put her on, as I intend to put her on, ask the 

Court to let me put her on in rebuttal, and she testifies 
that it is there, you don’t deny that, do you!

A. No. If it is there, it is there.
Q. When you had the conference with her on the 8th 

of September, did you ask her whether or not she
105 had elementary teaching certificate!

A. I believe it was not discussed.
Q. You weren’t interested in finding out whether she 

had one or not!
A. Yes, I am interested in those two teachers. I 

still am.
Q. You haven’t provided anything for them, have you! 
A. That’s right. I have not.
Q. Are there any schools still on split sessions!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Which schools are those!
A. Blanch, Taft, Lincoln, Vantown, Lora, Flintville 

High School, Flintville Elementary School, and Kelso.
Q. Mr. Norman, you explained the reason why you 

hired Mrs. Christine—Miss Martha Crawford, this Math, 
teacher, was because she had Calculus. She isn’t teaching 
Calculcus, is she!

A. No, sir, we do not teach it in our school.
Q. As a matter of fact, at the time you hired her Mr. 

Looby had already written to you about these plaintiffs, 
hadn’t he!

A. I imagine so. We had several letters from him.
Q. And you knew at that time Mr. Looby was

106 contending that this lady had been wrongfully dis­
charged, didn’t you? Is that right, sir!

A. Yes, sir, that was his statement.
Q. And you are telling the Court you are interested in 

these teachers?

■— 96a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



A. Yes, sir.
Q. I respectfully request you look at these four pieces 

of correspondence and see if you can identify them as 
being correspondence------

Mr. Stevens: I think that is immaterial what Mr. Looby 
said, your Honor, and I object to it.

The Court: The witness has said that he was aware at 
the time in question that Mr. Looby was contending that 
these teachers had been wrongfully discharged.

What else could you prove by it ? He has admitted that.
Mr. Williams: I would like to show the correspondence 

that went on between counsel and the superintendent.
The Court: I don’t think that is material. Objection 

sustained unless it is impeaching in some way.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) You say there is no Science 

107 teacher who was employed with less seniority. As 
a matter of fact, didn’t you just hire a Science 

teacher in August, 1965? Isn’t Mrs. Charles Spear teach­
ing General Science?

A. She teaches General Science and English.
Q. Over at------
A. Central High School, yes, sir.
Q. You do have a General Science teacher there?
A. Yes. She had been in the school system previously. 

She is not a new teacher.
Q. Was she employed last year?
A. Yes.
Q. The year before?
A. At Flintville High School, yes, sir.
Q. In the county?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was she a tenure teacher?
A. No, sir.
Q. You are saying to the Court you didn’t employ a 

single new Science teacher for the school year of 1965-66?
A. Not after the school year started.

— 97a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Q. I mean in this August period when you were assign­
ing the Negro teachers to the Negro school.

A. I don’t know how many teachers.
108 Q. You haven’t investigated that at all?

A. No, sir.
Q. You do recognize the fact that under a choice plan 

like you had that it could conceivably discourage Negro 
students, or Negro parents from sending Negro children 
to white schools if they know the teachers were teachers 
of their own color was going to be discharged as a result 
of their transferring to white schools?

A. I think that would have an effect on it, yes, sir, if 
they knew that.

Q. And that effect would discourage them from going 
to white schools, wouldn’t it?

A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Any redirect?
Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor.

Redirect Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Mr. Norman, Mr. Williams asked you about employ­
ment of Mrs. Spears. You stated she was employed to 
teach both Science and English?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it necessary that the teacher who was employed 

for that position actually teach English or could
109 she have taught Spanish or something else?

A. No, it was necessary to teach English.
Q. You had that requirement to fill?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Mrs. Spears employed because of her race?
A. No, sir.
Mr. Williams: I object, your Honor.

— 98a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



The Court: Objection overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Now, you were further asked that 

although about two-thirds of the 200 that Lincoln County 
lost were white, that no white teacher at that time lost 
her job. Why was that, about two-thirds of 200 students 
—did I understand that right?

A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. I think, Mr. Stevens, that part of that was antici­

pated and we did not attempt to employ as many teachers 
for that year as we had the year before. I think the 
Board was aware of that.

Q. What I am getting at, of the 200 that you lost, was 
that the only factor or also a factor------

Mr. Williams: I object to leading, if your Honor please.
The Court: Objection sustained.

110 This is rebuttal too, Mr. Stevens. Don’t forget that.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) You were also asked about a 

teacher being discharged at Flintville on account of loss 
of enrollment.

A. At Lincoln.
Q. Was that a white teacher?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there any colored teachers at Lincoln?
A. No, sir.
Q. At the time you employed Mr. Gordon Woods, did 

you know then that there would be a vacancy at the West 
End?

A. No, sir.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further?
Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor.

— 99a —
Testimony of Everett C. Norman



Testimony of Everett C. Norman

Recross-Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mr. Norman, are you not contending that there 
aren’t any white teachers at Lincoln County who are 
less qualified than these teachers, are you?

A. No, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, white teachers teaching in the 

elementary school down there who don’t have ten-
111 ure who are less qualified than Mrs. Rolfe?

A. That’s right.
Q. And there are white teachers down there teaching 

mathematics who are less qualified than Mrs. Peebles?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. The reason you can’t definitely say her comparison 

was made with people in her own school, reduction of 
enrollment comparing her only with people in her own 
school?

A. That’s right.
Q. Now, if any of the plaintiffs had asked and re­

quested you would not have assigned them to Central 
High School in August, 1965, would you?

A. Had they asked?
Q. Yes, sir.
A. They would have been considered, yes, sir.
Q. Sir?
A. We would have considered it, yes, sir.
Q. Did you tell your teachers that they would be con­

sidered for transfer to Central High School if they wanted 
to?

A. No, I didn’t tell them at this meeting I had with 
them.

Q. As a matter of fact, it was never your intention to 
have been assigned there during this year, was it?

112 A. I don’t think that entered into our planning. 
Q. That is what I mean, you didn’t intend to de-

— 100a —



segregate the faculty at West End and Central this year, 
did you?

A. That wasn’t a part of our integration plan, no sir. 
Q. So that it was a part of your plan that for the 

present the faculty at West End High School, and the 
faculty at Central High School would remain segregated? 

A. For this year, yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness.

Thereupon—
A. G. JENNINGS, JR.,

was called as a witness on behalf of the defendants, and 
after having been first duly sworn, was examined and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. State your name, please, sir?
A. A. G. Jennings, Jr.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Jenkins?

A. Route 1, Kelso, Tennessee.
113 Q. In Lincoln County?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is your occupation!
A. Farmer and real estate agent.
Q. Is that a full time job?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You also are Chairman of Board of Education of 

Lincoln County?
A. That’s right.
Q. Mr. Jennings, you have heard the testimony of Mr. 

Norman. I will ask you if insofar as you—well, I will 
ask this first. You are not an educator, are you?

A. I wouldn’t think so.

— 101a —
Testimony of A. G. Jennings, Jr.



Q. You are not an expert?
A. No, sir.
Q. Insofar as you are qualified to testiy, would you 

agree with the testimony of Mr. Norman?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I object to that, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained.
I think that is a little far fetched.
Mr. Stevens: I am trying, if your Honor please, to 

shorten it. This is accumulative testimony.
114 The Court: Don’t offer it then if it is accumulative. 

Mr. Stevens: It is, your Honor.
Mr. Stevens: It is, your Honor.
The Court: Do you have any cross-examination, Mr. 

Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, your Honor.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Do you then rest?
Mr. Stevens: Defendants rest.
The Court: Any rebuttal?
Mr. Williams: Just Mrs. Rolfe’s testimony, as I indi­

cated, if your Honor please, with regard to the fact her 
elementary certificate was on file in the superintendent’s 
office.

The Court: Just ask her that question right there. 

Thereupon—
MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE,

a plaintiff herein, was recalled on rebuttal, and having 
previously been duly sworn, was examined and testified 
further as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mrs. Rolfe, was your elementary teaching certificate 
on file in the superintendent’s office?

— 102a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe



115 A. It was. I requested my certificate------
Q. Talk louder.

A. It was. I offered it to Mr. Norman and he told me 
to give it to Miss Louise, which I did.

Q. When was that?
A. That was before school closed after I got the letter 

I was re-elected, and it was in the office until around 
the 15th of October when they sent me my three weeks’ 
check and they sent my certificate. I asked for the cer­
tificate so I could try to get work. My expired certificate 
for High School, my active certificate, and my elementary 
certificate, three were sent to me.

Q. From Mr. Norman’s office?
A. From Mr. Norman’s office.
Q. In October, 1965?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.
The Court: Cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. When was it you gave the Department your ele­
mentary certificate?

A. After we were notified that we were re-elected I 
showed the certificate to Mr. Dumas—after we were

116 elected in the Spring------
The Court: I am sorry, but you will have to come 

up to the witness stand. We can’t hear you.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) What year?
A. Spring of 1965 after I got my letter and returnee  ̂

it, I showed Mr. Dumas, my principal, my elementary 
certificate and he said, “ Give it to Mr. Norman.’ ’ I went 
to the office and Mr. Norman was coming out; maybe 
he forgot. He was walking and I called to him and 
showed it to him, and he said, “ Give it to Miss Louise.’ ’

— 103a —
Testimony of Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe



Proceedings

I gave it to Miss Louise and it was sent back to me 
when I requested it so I could get work in Nashville.

Q. What was the purpose of giving them the elementary 
certificate at that time; you had already been re-elected, 
had you not?

A. Well, due to integration there would be some re­
arranging, and I simply wanted to make it known that 
I had an elementary certificate as well as a secondary 
certificate.

Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, I would like to file this 
letter which I think the witness has already read to the 
Court. I would like to file it.

The Court: Without objection, let it be marked Exhibit 
No. 14.

(Thereupon the letter referred to was marked “ Exhibit 
No. 14.” )

117 Mr. Williams: I don’t see the relevancy of it, if 
your Honor please.

May I see it, if the Court please?
I object to this, if your Honor please. This is dated 

April 12, 1966, and has no relevancy whatsoever with re­
gard to any matter involved in this case.

The Court: The Court will give it the proper weight. 
Let it be marked Exhibit 14, and the objection is over­
ruled.

The witness is excused.
Anything further, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, I believe that’s all.
The Court: Ho you gentlemen want time to brief the 

case any further?
Mr. Williams: I suppose that might be directed pri­

marily to Mr. Stevens since I have filed a short brief. 
My brief is not as full as it could be, your Honor. I can 
cite some more cases.

The Court: I think it is very helpful after we have all

— 104a —



Proceedings

heard all the testimony then to at least supplement the 
brief. I don’t want to unduly burden you.

Mr. Williams: I would like to copy the Justice De-
118 partment’s brief in that Arkansas case and send it 

to your Honor. I will probably rely on it.
The Court: All right. How much time would you like 

to have.
Mr. Stevens: I would like to give Mr. Williams such

time that he needs, and then give me time------
The Court: No, we don’t do it that way. I will let you 

both brief, and then if you want to supplement, you may. 
In other words, we will give an initial period for both of 
you to file your briefs and when that time is up, then you 
will have an additional period in which to make any fur­
ther brief.

Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, give us some idea perhaps 
what we should brief, what question is in the Court’s 
mind.

The Court: Brief the issues and the law, that’s all.
Mr. Stevens: The whole thing?
The Court: Just submit whatever you want to. The 

more you do, the more helpful it will be to the Court. Of 
course, it has been my experience in most of these cases 
the Court has to do most of the library work any way. 
If you want to submit it without briefs, the Court will 
go ahead with it.

Mr. Stevens: No, your Honor.
119 Mr. Williams: I think ten days would be sufficient. 

Mr. Stevens: What I was thinking about, your
Honor, I have also got to file pleadings in this case. I 
would like for you to give me twenty days to answer, and 
twenty days to file the brief.

The Court: The Court will allow you twenty additional 
days from today in which to file your Answer, and to file 
your brief at the same time. Mr. Williams has twenty

— 105a —



Proceedings

days to file his brief. Then yon gentlemen will be al­
lowed five additional days after receiving—after service 
of the original briefs, to make any supplemental briefs 
that you want to. If you don’t supplement, the Court 
will figure you want it to be deemed waived.

Mr. Stevens: Five days from the time it is received, 
your Honor!

The Court: Yes, sir, after it is served on you.
Mr. Stevens: The mail, we get caught sometimes, your 

Honor.
Mr. Williams: That length of time, that would mean, 

if the Court please, the defendants are, in effect, preclud­
ing plaintiffs from getting back into the teaching

120 profession this year. I don’t suppose they------
The Court: I assume if they are entitled to any re­

lief they are entitled to their money too, to get paid for 
not working. And I am hopeful, in view of the fact Mr. 
Norman has discovered for the first time that Mrs. Bolfe 
is qualified to teach in the elementary schools, and was 
qualified at the time he made other arrangements about 
who was due to teach, that he give further consideration 
with the Board in deciding whether or not at this late 
date some readjustment should not be made as regards 
this woman.

Of course, that would not have anything to do with her 
past rights, but I got the impression from Mr. Norman 
that he was taken completely by surprise by this, and he 
made the statement more than once that he is interested 
in these teachers, and it is the policy of the Board to try 
to place the teachers that could be placed in their sys­
tem. That is something that just suggested itself to the 
defendants.

Is there any other matter we need to discuss about this!
Mr. Williams: I don’t think so.
The Court: Let me ask you gentlement one other ques-

— 106a —



Proceedings

tion. Having heard the proof, do you think the Court 
now has the full picture or are we going to have or

121 need to have an additional trial? In other words, 
can the evidence the Court has now received be the

evidence on trial?
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, I would feel in­

clined to doubt it. I would say—I would probably say 
yes, except that the defendant has raised some ques­
tions regarding a comparison of the qualifications of some 
teachers, he said he made after these teachers were dis­
charged.

If you are going to raise any such questions, I would 
certainly want to go into—with regard to Mrs. Peebles, 
he said, for instance, he hired Mrs. Crawford in Decem­
ber, 1965, and made a comparison. I would want some­
thing more than just his testimony on that. I  would 
want the opportunity to check into Mrs. Crawford’s back­
ground and find out something about it.

The Court: Perhaps you could do this by interroga­
tories so that another actual court hearing would not be 
necessary. You can complete the record in that way.

Mr. Williams: Could I review it, if your Honor please, 
and then state opposition by correspondence to your 

Honor ?
122 The Court: Yes, to the Clerk. Don’t send it to me. 

Mr. Williams: I understand that.
The Court: Any other person wish to be heard before 

this Court is adjourned?
Adjourn court until 9:00 o ’clock in the morning. 
(Thereupon, court adjourned until Thursday, April 21, 

1966, at 9:00 o ’clock a. m.)

— 107a —



108a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1

COLLECTIVE EXHIBIT NO. 1.

Lincoln County Department of Education, 
Fayetteville, Tennessee,

May 4, 1965.

To: J. H. Warf, Commissioner of Education

From: E. C. Norman, Superintendent of Lincoln County 
Schools

Plan for School Desegregation.

I. Statement of Intention

The Lincoln County Board of Education reiterates 
its intention to comply fully with Title VI. Civil 
Rights Act of 1964 as previously expressed in:

A. Board Resolution of January 15, 1965, approved 
and placed in Minutes of that date, stating that 
all schools of Lincoln County were open to chil­
dren without regard to race, color or national 
origin.

B. Signing of Assurances of Compliance on that date

C. Publication of the above actions in both local 
newspapers in January 1965.

II. Steps Already Taken

A. The Superintendent of Schools planned and di­
rected a Survey of Children in Segregated 
Schools. The location of all county schools (both 
races) and the residence of each Negro child, 
subdivided into elementary and high school pu­
pils, outside the city limits was plotted on a 
large map.



Collective Exhibit No. 1

A statistical bulletin was mimeographed to ac­
company the map. This bulletin explained in 
detail the changes in enrollment that would be 
brought about in each of the school districts. 
The Superintendent of Schools presented this in­
formation to the Board of Education on Janu­
ary 15, 1965. Using this information as the 
basis of its study, the Board of Education has 
discussed the formulation of plans at each sub­
sequent Board meeting.

B. The high school vocational class for the five 
county high schools was integrated in August 
1964. Boys attend trade classes at the county 
shop for one-half the school day and academic 
classes at their respective schools for one-half 
day.

C. Two Negro students applied for admission at 
Central High School at the opening of the 
1964-65 term. They were accepted on the basis 
of their credentials. One dropped out of school. 
The other requested permission to transfer to 
West End High School for his one-half day of 
academic work in order that he might have 
direct bus transportation to his home in the 
afternoon. This permission was granted.

D. Two adult classes—one in trades and one in 
nurses’ training—were integrated in August 
1964.

E. The program for homebound students was in­
tegrated in 1964-65.

F. School Sponsored Industry Training Program.
In order to attract industry to the county, the 
Superintendent of Schools devised a plan for

— 109a —



Collective Exhibit No. 1

training prospective employees in specific work 
skills. A contract was signed for a training 
program with Scoville Company in 1964, and 
with Trene Spectra in March 1965. Both of 
these classes were integrated from their open­
ing dates.

G. Teacher Integration has proceeded through in- 
service training and group meetings. The Lin­
coln County Principals Association integrated 
in 1963, Summer workshops in 1964, and the Lin­
coln County Teachers Association in 1964-65.

H. Operation Headstart awaiting government ap­
proval is a totally integrated program.

III. Steps to Be Taken in 1965-66
A. Pupils

Pupil placement will be based upon a combina­
tion of geographic area and a Freedom of Choice
Plan. It will inclule grades 1-12 and will begin 
with the opening of the 1965-66 school term.

No pupil will be transported past another 
school of the same grade level except for condi­
tions of over-crowding.

Any student will be given permission to trans­
fer to another school in the county of the same 
grade level, providing that this transfer does not 
deprive another child living closer to the school.

Students transferring into the Lincoln County 
school system will be assigned on the same basis 
as outlined in this plan.

B. Teachers and Other School Personnel
Integration of teachers and other school per­

sonnel will begin with the 1965-66 school term.

— 110a —



Assignments and consideration of new applica­
tions will not be based upon considerations of 
race, color or national origin.

All inservice training meetings, workshops, 
planning committees on curriculum, book adop­
tion and other phases, and the Lincoln County 
Principals and County Teachers Association are 
already integrated.

C. Pupil Transportation
Bus integration, both of pupils and drivers, 

will begin with the 1965-66 school term. A 
unitary transportation system will be substituted 
for dual routes. The bus routes of this system 
will not be based upon any consideration of race, 
color or national origin.

D. School Activities
All school associated activities will be on a 

non-segregated basis.

IV. School District Lines

No change or alterations will be made in school 
district lines or pupil zones within the districts for 
the specific purpose of obstructing the desegregation 
of schools.

V. Notices to Parents and Publication of Plan

In adequate time prior to the opening of the 1965-66 
school year, the following notification will be made:

A. All principals will be notified in a conference 
prior to July 1, 1965, of the changes in their re­
spective school operations and will be given a 
list of the pupils who will be assigned to their 
schools.

— Ilia  —
Collective Exhibit No. 1



B. Parents and pupils in both the geographic as­
signment areas and the freedom of choice areas 
will be notified by letter in adequate time for 
choices to be made.

C. Three forms of letters will be used. Tentative 
copies of these forms are attached to the Plan 
for Desegregation for State Department Ap­
proval.

D. Releases in clear and simple language will be 
given to the local newspapers and to the radio 
station outlining the plan. A sample release is 
attached.

V. Sample Notices

A. To parents of children entering school for the 
first time or transferring from elementary to 
high school.

Initial Assignment

(Geographic Area)

To: (Name of Parent)

From: Lincoln County Board of Education 

Dear Parent:
Your child (Name)

will be enrolling i n ............. First Grade
..............First Year of High School

He (or she) will be assigned to ........................................
School which opens on July 26 . . . .  August 23 . . . .  1965.

Race, color, or national origin will not be a factor in 
school assignment, re-assignment or transfer. If over­

— 112a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1



crowding results at a particular school, initial assignment 
or reassignment will be made by giving preference to 
pupils residing closest to the school without regard to 
race, color, or national origin. No school personnel will 
penalize or favor any child assigned to his school for 
reasons of race, color, or national origin.

If you wish to discuss this matter with us, or secure 
additional information concerning the schools or the bus 
route passing your home, we shall be glad to talk to you.

Very sincerely yours,
(Signed) E. C. NORMAN, Superintendent, 

Lincoln County Schools.

B. To parents whose children will be transferred 
to a different school in the same geographic area.

To: (Name of Parent)

From: Lincoln County Board of Education

Dear Parent:

Beginning with the school term of 1965-66, no child 
will be allowed to ride past another school of the same 
grade level, unless that school is overcrowded.

Your child will be transferred to ....................................
School, which opens July 2 6 ..........August 23 ............ 1965.

Race, color or national origin will not be a factor in 
school assignment, re-assignment or transfer. If over­
crowding results at a particular school, preference will 
be given to children residing closest to the school. No 
school personnel will penalize or favor any child assigned 
to his school by reasons of race, color or national origin.

If for any reason you wish to discuss this assignment, 
or to secure further information concerning the school or

— 113a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1



the bus route passing your home, we shall be glad to 
talk to you.

Very sincerely yours,
(signed)

E. C. NORMAN, Superintendent, 
Lincoln County School.

C. Freedom of Choice Notice 
To: (Name of Parent)

From: Lincoln County Board of Education 
Dear Parent:

Beginning with the the opening of the school term of 
1965-66, you will be allowed a freedom of choice as tq 
which high school or elementary school in your area that 
your child will attend.

Race, color, or national origin will not be a factor in 
school assignment, reassignment or transfer. If by this 
exercise of choice a school becomes overcrowded, prefer­
ence will be given to the children living nearest the school. 
School personnel will neither penalize or favor any pupil 
because of the choice he makes in the exercise of his 
rights under the desegregation plan.

The Pre-Registration dates are set for August 23-24, 
1965.* If at any time in advance of that date you wish 
to discuss the choice of school, you and your child will 
have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the prin­
cipal or a staff member in my office.

Very sincerely yours,
(Signed)

E. C. NORMAN, Superintendent, 
Lincoln County Schools.

— 114a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1

* This Pre-Registration date may be advanced in order to give the 
schools time to plan in accordance with the number enrolled.



— 115a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1 

Sample Press Release 

Lincoln County Schools in Compliance

The Lincoln County Board of Education adopted a 
county school plan for desegregation at its meeting on 
May 3, 1965 in accordance with the general policies of the 
U. S. Civil Rights Act.

The Board reiterated its intention to comply fully with 
the law as expressed by a Board Resolution of January 15, 
1965, the signing of an Assurance of Compliance on that 
date and immediate release of this information to both 
county newspapers.

In eunciating its policy which will go into effect this 
fall at the opening of the 1965-66 school term, the Board 
said:

Race, color or national origin will not be a factor in 
school assignment, re-assignment or transfer.

It will not be considered in assigning teachers and 
school personnel, selecting new teachers or transfering 
teachers from one school to another.

Bus routing will be done on a unitary basis instead of 
the present dual system. The bus routes of this system 
will not be based upon any consideration of race, color 
or national origin.

Two plans will be used. In the more sparsely settled 
rural areas where attendance at school is dependent upon 
bus transportation pupils will be assigned according to 
geographical residence. No pupil will be allowed to pass 
another school of the same grade level. If this policy 
brings over-crowding children living nearest the over­
crowded school will first be placed there.



In the Central school area, all students will be given 
freedom of choice both of elementary and of high schools. 
Notices will be sent to each parent of this intent and a 
pre-registration will be held at each school. Here again, 
if this choice of school indicates over-crowding, race, 
color or national origin will not be considered in re-as­
signing the children and equalizing the load. The chil­
dren living nearest the school will have preference.

A Conference of principals and board members will be 
held before June 30, 1965 for further planning. In the 
geographic assignment areas, each principal will be given 
a list of the pupils assigned to his school.

This Plan of School Desegregation is hereby submitted 
for approval to J. H. Warf, Commissioner of Education 
by the Lincoln County Board of Education on May 10, 
1965.

A. G. JENNINGS, JR.,
Chairman of Board of Education,

E. C. NORMAN,
E. C. NORMAN, Superintendent of Schools. 

Address: Fayetteville, Tennessee.

Compliance Information:

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs

This outline is furnished as an aid in reporting in­
formation generally helpful in appraising the sufficiency 
of plans for desegregation of school districts which seek 
compliance with the nondiscriminatory policy of Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Precise, up-to-the minute 
statistics are not required. The information sought is 
the kind that knowledgeable school authorities are aware 
of in general terms and approximations will suffice where 
exact detail is not easily available.

— 116a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1



117a —

I. Racial Characteristics of School Population

A. By race, what are the approximate school-age popu­
lations residing within the geographic boundaries of the 
school district (including residents who attend public 
schools outside the district or private school within or 
without the district) ? White 4498 Negro 562 Other 0.

B. How many Negroes presently attend predominantly 
white schools? None.

C. How many whites presently attend predominantly 
Negro schools? None.

D. By grade level, approximately how many Negro 
pupils presently attend classes with whites in the public 
schools of the district (strike out grades not actually
taught in district schools)? Kindorgartou___ ; 1st grade
0; 2nd 0; 3rd 0; 4th 0; 5th 0; 6th 0; 7th 0; 8th 0; 9th 0; 
10th 0; 11th 0; 12th 4.

E. How many pupils attend public schools outside the
district on a tuition-paid basis? White 0; Negro 0; 
Other .......

F. How many pupils residing in the district presently 
attend private schools on a tuition-grant basis? White 0; 
Negro 0; Other 0.

G. Where separate treatment is accorded any other non- 
white groups besides Negroes, please indicate the general 
situation on a separately attached sheet. None.

II. Racial Characteristics of School District

A. What is the number of elementary schools (grades 1 
through 8) in which the pupils enrolled are: all white 13; 
all Negro 4; integrated 0; other (describe on a separate 
sheet) ?

Collective Exhibit No. 1



B. What is the number of junior high schools (grades 0 
through 0) in which the pupils enrolled are: all white. . . . ;  
all Negro. . . . ;  integrated.. . . ;  other (describe on a sepa­
rate sheet)?

C. What is the number of high schools (grades 9 
through 12) in which the pupils enrolled are: all white 4; 
all Negro 1; integrated 0; other (describe on a separately 
attached sheet) ?

(See attached sheet)

D. Briefly describe on a separately attached sheet the 
general racial characteristics of the pupil populations in 
any special schools operated by the district which are not 
accounted for in the categories set out above.

(Attached)

III. Racial Characteristics of Teaching and Administra­
tive Staffs

A. By race, what is the approximate number of teachers 
in the district who are: white 169; Negro 22; other . . . .  1

B. By race, what is the approximate number of non­
teaching staff members who are: white 5; Negro 0; other 
___?

C. How many elementary schools have teaching staffs 
which are: all white 13; all Negro 4; integrated 0; other 
(describe separately) f

D. How many junior high schools have teaching staffs 
which are: all white 0; all Negro 0; integrated 0; other 
(describe separately) ?

E. How many high schools have teaching staffs which 
are: all white 4; all Negro 1; integrated 0; other (describe 
separately) ?

— 118a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1



Collective Exhibit No. 1

IV. Maps

Maps, which need not be of professional quality, can be 
separately furnished where useful or perhaps necessary to 
demonstrate such things as school location, bus routes. 
Supply these separately where this is thought desirable 
to demonstrate particular characteristics of a desegrega­
tion plan.

(Attached)

V. School Bus Routes and Practices

Where school busses are supplied for some or all pupils, 
describe in a general way on a separate sheet the effect 
which the routes and stops made by the busses have on 
the racial characteristics of the district’s schools.

(Attached)
Date: May 3, 1965

LINCOLN COUNTY, TENNESSEE, 
Name of School District,

A. G. JENNINGS, JR.,
Signature of Chairman of the Board, 

EVERETT C. NORMAN,
Signature of Superintendent.

Received May 11, 1965, Education Central Office. 

Compliance Information.

Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. 

Attached Sheet.

I. Racial Characteristics of School Population

D. Four Negro boys attend the trades class with 
the boys from the White high school. This is a one-



half school day in vocational class, the other half in 
academic subjects at their respective schools.

II. Racial Characteristics of School District

A-C. The seeming contradiction in the number of 
elementary and the number of high schools with the 
total number of schools lies in the fact that three 
schools, two white and one Negro, are 1-12 schools 
with separate elementary and high school depart­
ments under one principal.

D. Special schools operated by the Lincoln County 
Board of Education are:

Vocational classes for high school students 
Adult class for licensed practical nurse training 
Adult evening class in vocational training 
All of these are integrated.

III. Racial Characteristics of Teaching and Administra­
tive Staffs

No attachment needed

IV. Maps

A map, showing the location of Negro pupils in 
each school area is attached to the Lincoln County 
Plan for School Integration enclosed separately.

V. School Bus Routes and Practices

More than 80 per cent of Lincoln County children 
ride school busses. At present these are segregated. 
The routes and stops of the buses will have little 
effect on the plan for integration as the Negro pop­
ulation in the county is widely scattered and all chil­
dren live in areas now being served by buses.

— 120a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1

Here follows map.



— 121a —
Collective Exhibit No. 1

C
O

r

A L A  13 A M A



— 122a —
Answer of Defendant County Board

ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANTS, COUNTY BOARD 
OF EDUCATION OF LINCOLN COUNTY, TEN­
NESSEE, A. C. JENNINGS, JR., J. C. KING, 
THOMAS SMITH, TOM PORTER, FRANK ERWIN, 
JOE TAFT, ERNEST PENDERGRASS, CHARLES 
DELAP, EDWIN FLINT, AND TOMMY WARREN, 
AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS MEMBERS OF SAID 
BOARD OF EDUCATION; AND EVERETT C. NOR­
MAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF LIN­
COLN COUNTY, TENNESSEE— FILED MAY 8,1966.

First Defense.

The defendants move to strike the following allegation 
of paragraph III of the complaint, to-wit:

“ Said policy, practice, custom and usage violates not 
only the rights of plaintiffs and other Negro faculty per­
sonnel and applicants for employment as such faculty 
personnel, but also the rights of Negro children attending 
said public schools, as to whose rights there is a close 
nexus with those of plaintiffs and other Negro teachers 
and teacher applicants for employment here sought to be 
vindicated and in whose behalf plaintiffs also bring this 
suit, as more fully appears hereinafter”  and the following 
allegation of paragraph VII of the complaint, to-wit:

“ The refusal of defendants, on account of race and 
color, to employ or transfer Negro teachers in or to white 
or formerly white schools, or to employ and assign both 
Negro and white teachers to each school in said School 
System, retains a substantial aspect of racial segregation 
and discrimination in the schools which prevents the 
Negro children attending schools in Lincoln County from 
obtaining a racially desegregated and non-discriminatory 
education. The discharge and threat of discharge of



plaintiffs and any other Negro teachers, principals and 
supporting personnel by defendants in connection with 
and as a result of choices of schools offered to Negro 
children under said desegregation plan, constitutes a fac­
tor of official coercion designed and tending to influence 
and hinder any freedom of choice by students or their 
parents under said desegregation plan. The rights of said 
Negro school children are therefore so closely interwoven 
with those of the plaintiffs that they are appropriate 
members of the class on whose behalf plaintiffs bring this 
suit, and the following words of paragraph VIII of the 
complaint, to-wit:

“ Including all Negro school children attending school 
in said County.”

For ground for this motion defendants say that the 
school children referred to are not similarly situated with 
plaintiffs, are not within the same class and cannot be 
represented by the plaintiffs.

Second Defense.

The complaint fails to state a claim against defendants 
upon which relief can be granted.

Third Defense.

The defendants deny that the plaintiffs represent Negro 
children attending school in Lincoln County, Tennessee.

Fourth Defense.

The defendants deny that the plaintiffs represent any 
other teachers or that there are any other teachers or 
persons similarly situated.

— 123a —
Answer of Defendant County Board



— 124a —
A n s w e r  o f  D e fen d a n t C o u n ty  B o a rd  

Fifth Defense.

This action, insofar as it seeks a money judgment or 
the payment of the salaries for the school year 1965- 
1966, is premature.

Sixth Defense.

Insofar as the complaint seeks an injunction, the plain­
tiffs are guilty of laches.

Seventh Defense.

The defendants in answer to the allegations of the com­
plaint, say:

I .

The defendants deny that the matter in controversy 
exceeds the sum of or value of $10,000.00, but admit that 
this Court has jurisdiction of this case.

n.
The defendants deny that the plaintiffs are entitled to 

any of the relief enumerated in Paragraph II of the com­
plaint and deny all allegations of said paragraph.

III.
The defendants admit that the plaintiffs are Negroes 

and citizens of the United States. It is admitted that 
Mrs. Rolfe is a resident of Davidson County, Tennessee, 
and that until on or about February, 1966, Mrs. Peebles 
was a resident of Lincoln County, Tennessee, and is now 
residing in the State of Alabama. The defendants admil 
that the plaintiffs were formerly regularly employed by 
defendants as teachers in the Lincoln County School Sys­
tem under the jurisdiction, management and control of 
the defendants and that the said System is a part of the 
public school system of the State of Tennessee. The de-



A n s w e r  o f  D e fen d a n t C o u n ty  B o a rd

fendants admit that the plaintiffs were during the school 
years, 1963-1964 and 1964-1965 assigned to an all Negro 
public school with a faculty consisting only of Negroes 
pursuant to a custom whereby the pupils attended racially 
segregated schools and teachers and other supporting per­
sonnel were employed and transferred on a racially 
segregated basis “ and/or on the basis of the race or color 
of the faculty members to be employed, assigned, or 
transferred and the race or color of the students or a 
majority of the students attending a particular school or 
class with each school, pursuant to the following practice, 
custom and usage therein complained of.”  All other al­
legations of paragraph III of the complaint are denied.

IV.
All allegations of paragraph IV are admitted but it is 

averred that the plaintiffs were not excluded from par­
ticipation in or denied the benefits of or subjected to 
discrimination under any program or activity receiving 
Federal financial assistance because of race, color, na­
tional origin or otherwise.

V.
The defendants admit that for many years past they, 

acting under color of the laws of the State of Tennessee, 
pursued a policy, practice, custom and usage of operat­
ing segregated schools with Negro faculty assigned to 
exclusively Negro schools and white teachers assigned to 
exclusively white schools. It is admitted that the defend­
ants continued to operate schools attended by pupils on 
a segregated basis and to which teachers were assigned 
on a segregated basis to and including the school year 
1964-1965. The allegations as to the adoption of a de­
segregation plan and its approval by the Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare are admitted. All other 
allegations of paragraph V are denied.

—  125a —



A n s w e r  o f  D e fen d a n t C o u n ty  B o a rd

VI.
The defendants admit that in the 1965 registration ap­

proximately 200 Negro children elected not to attend West 
End High School and that on September 8, 1965, after the 
School year had begun the defendants summarily dis­
charged the plaintiffs. The defendants aver that the 
plaintiffs were not discharged until after the Board could 
meet and review the pupil-ratio situations at the schools 
concerned and the required positions to be filled. The 
plaintiffs were necessarily discharged because the re­
duced enrollment at the West End High School made 
necessary a reduction in teacher positions. The defend­
ants aver that the plaintiffs were not tenure teachers un­
der Tennessee law and that there were no vacancies in 
any of the schools in Lincoln County at the time to which 
the plaintiffs could be assigned. The defendants further 
aver that teachers in other schools in the county were at 
that time holding positions earned in their respective 
positions by average daily attendance at the individual 
schools and could not be discharged to make positions 
available for teachers leaving West End High School. 
The defendants further aver that the plaintiffs had no 
contracts to teach in any schools of Lincoln County ex­
cept that, if their positions had not been abolished by 
loss of enrollment, they would have been entitled to a 
contract to teach at West End High School.

The defendants admit the allegations relative to the 
education and experience of the plaintiffs, and that had 
Negro students not chosen to attend formerly all white 
schools the plaintiffs would not have been discharged.

All other allegations of paragraph VI are denied.

VII.
The defendants deny all allegations of paragraph VII 

of the complaint.

—  126a —



VIII.

The defendants deny each and every allegation of para­
graph VIII of the complaint.

IX.
The defendants deny each and every allegation of para­

graph IX  of the complaint.

X.
The defendants admit that there is between the parties 

an actual controversy but the defendants deny that the 
plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief prayed.

XL

The defendants further aver that the plaintiff, Mrs. 
Bernice L. Peebles, after her dismissal failed to report 
for an interview for a position in the Lincoln County 
School System when requested so to do, that both plain­
tiffs left Lincoln County without leaving forwarding ad­
dresses with the defendants, that neither of the plaintiffs 
made any application for or effort to obtain re-employ­
ment with the Lincoln County School System, and that 
neither of the plaintiffs have used reasonable diligence 
to obtain employment elsewhere.

XII.
There are no positions for which the plaintiffs are 

qualified now available in the Lincoln County School 
System.

STEVENS & BAGLEY,
By: ROBERT W. STEVENS,

220 East College Street,
Fayetteville, Tennessee, 

Attorneys for Defendants.

—  127a —

Answer of Defendant County Board



MEMORANDUM OPINION— FILED JULY 20, 1966,

This is an action by two former teachers at West End 
School in Fayetteville, Tennessee, whose positions were 
abolished by the defendant Board of Education three 
weeks after the 1965-1966 school term had commenced, 
following the purported desegregation of the public 
schools of Lincoln County, Tennessee, for the purpose of 
“ * * * compliance with the civil rights law * * The 
plaintiffs seek, in te r  alia , compensation of which they 
claim they were wrongfully deprived and an injunction 
requiring the defendants to reinstate them as teachers in 
the system operated by the defendants. It is claimed that 
the plaintiffs and others in similar situations were dis­
charged because of their race.

The jurisdiction of this Court was properly invoked on 
April 6, 1966. 28 U. S, C., §§ 1331 and 1343 (3); 42 U. S. C., 
§§ 1893, 1981 and 2000d. The Court ordered the defendants 
to show cause on April 15, 1966 why the injunction should 
not issue. Hearing on the order was reset, on a showing 
by the defendants of good cause, and was heard by the 
Court, without a jury, on April 20, 1966. The questions 
involved have now been briefed well by counsel for the 
contesting parties and have been carefully reviewed by the 
Court.

While the matter remained under advisement by the 
Court, counsel supplied a photographic reproduction of 
an opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit, filed June 6, 1966, which appears to pro­
vide the determinative precedent for the adjudication of 
the issue at bar. Therein, a crucial point was the fact 
that the Hendersonville, N. C. City Board of Education 
had determined that when there was a sharp decrease in 
enrollment of Negro students and the consequent closing 
of an all-Negro consolidated school, the Negro teachers

—  128a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion



—  129a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion

affected lost their jobs and, therefore, “ * * * stood in the 
position of new applicants.”  Here, the defendants con­
sidered all non-tenure teachers1 in its system as “ new ap- 
licants”  each school year. There was a sharp decrease in 
enrollment at West End School and an attendant decrease 
in the average daily attendance, to the extent that state 
aid was available for only eleven teachers there, instead 
of the previous allotment of 15 teachers. When this oc­
curred, the defendant Board summarily declared the posi­
tions abolished. In this connection, the appellate court 
observed:

“ The Board’s conduct involved four errors of law. 
First, the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education, 
iM7 U. S. 483 (1954), forbids the consideration of race 
in faculty selections just as it borbids it in pupil 
placement. See Wheeler v. Durham City Board of 
Education, 346 F. 2d 768, 773 (4 Cir. 1965). Thus the 
reduction in the number of Negro pupils did not jus­
tify a corresponding reduction in the number of Negro 
teachers. Franklin v. County School Board of Giles 
County, . . .  F. 2d . . .  (4 Cir. 1966). Second, the 
Negro school teachers were public employees who 
could not be discriminated against on account of their 
lace with respect to their retention in the system. 
Johnson v. Branch, . . .  F. 2d . . .  (4 Cir. 1966), and 
cases therein cited, wherein the Court discussed the 
North Carolina law respecting teacher contracts and 
the right of renewal. * * [The remainder of the 
opinion in this connection is not germane to the issues 
with which this Court is now confronted.] Chambers 
v. The Hendersonville City Board of Education, C. A.

l  Under the Policies, Rule and Regulations” of the Lincoln County 
Board of Education (1964-1965), a teacher elected to the system for the 
first time remained on probation for a period of three years and at­
tained a permanent tenure if elected for the fourth term and had a

«!eJTee famd Pr°Per certificatl° n by the Department of Education of the State of Tennessee.



4th (1966), . . .  F. (2nd) . . . ,  . . .  [decided June 6, 
1966],

Until the school year 1965-1966, Lincoln County public 
schools were operated under a compulsory bi-racial system 
in open defiance of the law for nearly a decade. Brown v. 
Board of Education, su p ra , 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873, 
38 A. L. R. (2nd) 1180. No action was taken by the de­
fendants or their predecessors after being advised by the 
Tennessee Commissioner of Education, on June 24, 1955, 
of the declaration of the law of the land by the Supreme 
Court of the United States, although at its meeting of 
August 15, 1955, the defendant Board went “ * * * on 
record as adopting * * * the Free' Choice Plan of school 
attendance for Negro and white children in Lincoln County, 
to take effect with the school year 1956-57 embodying the 
principles suggested by this name and instructed] the 
Superintendent of Education to proceed immediately to 
work out the details of this plan for presentation to the 
Board at the earliest practical time.”  Despite urgings 
for appropriate action in the meantime, there appears to 
have been no further discussion of desegregation until 
August 3, 1964; and, as late as January, 1965, the Board 
members were still unable to agree on a plan. The plan 
was eventually rearranged in the latter part of April, 
1965 to the satisfaction of the Board members and was 
formally adopted on May 10, 1965. This was more than 
eight years after the Tennessee Supreme Court had added 
a supplemental declaration of the law regulating public 
school operations. Roy v. Brittain (1956), 201 Tenn. 140, 
297 S. W. (2nd) 72.

It was only when faced with the loss of $136,232.72 in 
federal aid funds, receipt of which was contingent on com­
pliance with the Civil Rights Law,2 that the defendants

2 Economics appears to have been more effective in the solution of 
these problems than moral or legal suasion.

—  130a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion



adopted a plan of desegregation. Interestingly, all the 
remainder of Lincoln County lying outside of the county 
seat community of Fayetteville was zoned geographically, 
while school children residing within Fayetteville were 
given freedom of choice to attend any school for which 
the students were eligible.

The inference follows logically that this was hardly more 
than ‘ a Hobson’s choice” . The defendant superintendent, 
Mr. Norman, was well aware, from his experience as an 
educator, that no child of the Caucasian race was likely 
to elect to begin attending an all-Negro school, and that 
Negro parents would be discouraged from transferring 
their children away from an all-Negro school because of 
the probabilities that teachers of that race would be dis­
placed as a result.

The defendant Mr. Norman and the defendant Board 
members were so acutely attuned to the situation that 
they were able to anticipate a considerable decrease in 
enrollment system-wide. For this reason, fewer teachers 
were hired for the 1965-1966 term than for the preceding 
year." There was, in fact, a decrease in enrollment of 
about 200 (two-thirds of whom were of the Caucasion 
race) when the term began on August 23, 1965.3 4

Only 37 Negro students registered at the formerly all- 
Caucasian Central High School in Fayetteville before the 
commencement of the new term. 135 Negro children re­
turned to West End School. However, on the opening day 
of the new term, about 90 Negro students departed West 
End and enrolled in Central. When, within ten days, ten 
more students followed suit, decimating the all-Negro body 
at West End, it became obvious that four teachers were

—  131a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion

3 20 new teachers were brought into the system for the term.
4 Rural schools opened July 19, 1965.



no longer needed in the system. Ironically, the only school 
adversely affected was West End.

On the faculty at West End in the high school depart­
ment at this time were the plaintiffs, Mfrs. Eolfe and Mrs. 
Peebles. Mrs. Eolfe holds the degree of bachelor of science 
and is certified by the State of Tennessee to teach general 
science, physics, chemistry, biology, and grades one 
through nine in elementary school.5 She had taught else­
where for six years before coming to Lincoln County for 
the school term, 1963-1964, in response to a need for a 
science instructor who could also give instruction in Span­
ish.6 She was re-employed and had taught in the school 
year, 1964-1965, had accepted re-election for the 1965-1966 
school year, and was teaching courses in general science 
and physics.

Mrs. Peebles, a native and (until discharged) a life-long 
resident of Lincoln County, holds a bachelor’s degree in, 
and is certified by the State of Tennessee to teach mathe­
matics. She had taught elsewhere for two years before 
joining the Lincoln County system at the same time as 
Mrs. Eolfe. She, also, was re-employed and had taught 
in the school year 1964-1965, and, likewise, had accepted 
re-election for the 1965-1966 school year, and was teaching 
courses in mathematics at West End.

The defendants were confident of approval by the United 
States Department of Health, Education and Welfare of 
their plan of desegregation and had proceeded on the 
expectation of its approval since its adoption on May 10,

5 The defendant, Mr. Norman, expressed an interest in the plaintiffs 
even at the time of the hearing, but he did not know until the hearing 
that Mrs. Rolfe was certified as a teacher in the elementary grades, 
although it appears that Mrs. Rolfe delivered her certificate of that 
qualification to his office in the Spring of 1965.

6 There was no course offered in Spanish at West End, but Mrs. 
Rolfe gave informal instruction in her spare moments to all students 
who were interested.

—  132a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion



1965. Such approval was not forthcoming, however, until 
August 31, 1965.

One week afterward, on September 7, 1965, the defend­
ant Board convened in regular monthly session, and “ * * * 
reviewed the whole integration problem, and then it pro­
ceeded to take the necessary steps to correct its teaching 
load to the amount [sic: number] of positions it had. * * * ”  
There were transfers from one school to another and from 
one position to another. No teacher of the Caucasian race 
was discharged;7 of the non-tenure Negro teachers in the 
system, only one remained when the Board completed the 
taking of “ * * * the necessary steps to correct its teaching 
load * * Four members of the all-Negro faculty at 
West End were discharged,8 effective at the end of the fol­
lowing school day.

Although the defendants contend that teachers are 
elected for employment within the system,9 as opposed to 
a particular school, and, although the defendant Board 
had provided in its plan of May 10, 1965 that all teachers 
would be integrated at the beginning of the 1965-1966 
school year,10 only members of the West End faculty were 
considered for readjustments or discharge, and the only 
comparison of the effectiveness of the respective teachers 
in the system was the comparison of each West End 
teacher with other West End teachers.

—  133a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion

7 A teacher of the Caucasian race was discharged because of de­
crease in enrollment in an elementary school the following January.

8 Two of this number were subsequently placed elsewhere in tho 
system.

9 The Board reserved unto itself the right to transfer any employee 
to another school or position within the system when deemed “* * * 
for the welfare of the children involved.”

10 Despite this plain statement in its plan the defendants decided to 
keep the faculties at W!est End School and Central High School segre­
gated during the school year 1965-1966 “ * * * for no particular rea­
son. * * * It wasn’t a part of our integration plan * *



Considering all non-tenure teachers in the system as 
“ new applicants” 11 for employment each year, and having 
flaunted its own plan by assigning only Negro teachers to 
West End School, and in considering only the comparative 
qualifications of members of the West End faculty, ob­
viously, the Board limited its candidates for termination 
of employment to the non-tenure Negro teachers at West 
End.

The Board did not exclude from its consideration in 
making such comparison the seniority of the respective 
Negro non-tenure teachers at West End “ * * * altogether 
* * but it only “ * * * figured in # # #.”  Other factors 
considered were:

“ The grades that would be most affected; ‘What 
combination of grades you would have to use in dis­
missing a teacher; whether or not you could move 
some students to the next teacher above, or to the 
next teacher below * * V  ”

Under the requirements of Tennessee law, the Board 
elected the teachers it believed would be needed in the 
immediately succeeding year 30 days before the expiration 
of the current school year. At this time each year, ac­
cording to Mr. Norman, all teachers in the system were 
compared with all the others as to effectiveness. How­
ever, with the assignment of an all-Negro faculty to West 
End—the one school which Mr. Norman testified would 
“ be hurt”  in the implementation of the Board’s plan— 
this pre-school-year comparison was of no benefit at all 
to the paintiffs when the moment of decision arrived.

Mr. Norman conceded that there are non-tenure teach­
ers in the elementary schools of Lincoln County with less

11 Included in the Board’s plan was the policy that “ * * * [assign ­
ments and consideration of new applications will not be based upon 
considerations of race, color or national origin.”

—  134a —

Memorandum Opinion on Rearing on Motion



qualifications that those possessed by Mrs. Rolfe. Eight 
such teachers were junior to Mrs. Rolfe in point of service 
with the system. She, however, was the junior science 
instructor in the system. He could not compare the qual­
ifications of Mrs. Peebles with other mathematics instruc­
tors in the system, and asserted, despite all the foregoing, 
that he could not foresee the subsequent abolishment of 
Mrs. Peebles’ position at West End when he engaged, less 
than a month earlier, a newcomer to the system to teach 
solid geometry, trigonometry and algebra I at Central 
High School.

The aforementioned “ newcomer”  soon resigned, and 
the qualifications of Mrs. Peebles were considered against 
those of Mrs. Martha Crawford, a former teacher there 
who had left the system until “ a home situation cleared 
up” . The two teachers were compared carefully and at 
length, and the Board decided that Mrs. Crawford’s qual­
ifications “ * # * were a little better # # *”  than Mrs. 
Peebles’. Included in the comparison was the fact that 
Mrs. Crawford had passed one course in calculus which 
Mrs. Peebles had been required to repeat several times in 
college, although Central High School has never offered, 
and does not now offer, calculus.

At a future time, Mr. Norman directed an assistant to 
contact Mrs. Peebles about another position in the system 
at her former salary. Mrs. Peebles testified that she was 
called on the telephone about the position but that her 
caller “ * * * didn’t know the exact kind of job, * * * and 
she didn’t know the exact salary. * #

Both Mrs. Rolfe and Mrs. Peebles had been compli­
mented in their respective work at West End by the prin­
cipal. Neither had ever received any reprimand or com­
plaint about their performance of their respective 
assignments.

—  135a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion



With this background, the Court is of the opinion that 
the reasonable inferences which logically follow cast upon 
the defendants the burden of justifying its conduct, which 
resulted in the discharging of Mrs. Rolfe and Mrs. Peebles, 
by clear and convincing evidence. “  * * # Innumerable 
cases have clearly established the principle that under 
circumstances such as this where a history of racial dis­
crimination exists, the burden of proof has been thrown 
upon the party having the power to produce the facts. 
* * *”  Chambers v. The Hendersonville City Board of 
Education, su p ra .

While the Court is impressed with the myriad of prob­
lems involving public opinion which probably accom­
panied the start, such as it is, that has been made in the 
conversion of the Lincoln County system into a nonracial 
operation, the Court is also struck with the impact of the 
lack of good faith exhibited by the defendants in the pur­
ported implementation of its plan. It is reasonable to 
infer that the defendants would have continued, in the ab­
sence of litigation, to defy the unambiguous mandate of 
the law had the Congress not employed the device of eco­
nomic sanctions to inspire obedience; that the plan even­
tually adopted was the minimum which would qualify the 
defendants for federal funds; that the bi-parte type of 
plan had as its purpose the postponement of assigning 
Negro teachers to Central High School; and, that the plan 
continued to be the subject of debate until some ingenious 
method could be devised to penalize the Negroes of Lin­
coln County, locally prominent, through members of their 
race who are in the teaching profession, for becoming the 
beneficiaries of a program of equalizing the citizenship in 
this manner.

The defendants admit, in part, their bad faith, i. e., they 
promulgated a plan providing for the immediate integra-

—  136a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion



—  137a

tion of their faculties when it was their stated purpose to 
maintain segregated faculties in the two principal schools 
in Fayetteville. They failed to establish definite objective 
standards for the employment and retention of teachers 
for application to all teachers alike; instead, they designed 
a pattern which could only result in discrimination against 
Negro teachers.

“ Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
“ When first we practice to deceive!” 12

Now, the availability of funds in the future from the 
federal government is placed in doubt. There could he an 
effort to recoup the amount the County has already re­
ceived. Reinstatement of the plaintiffs may bring prob­
lems of faculty overloading. Additional litigation may re­
sult. Compensation must be paid when no services were 
performed. Lincoln County may be compelled to pay for 
services for which it can receive no reimbursement in the 
form of state aid. Even a tax increase may follow. This 
could be a high price for the citizens of Lincoln County to 
pay for their brief moment of surcease from the doing of 
equal justice among all. Whatever fault there be must be 
accredited to those who prevailed on the members of the 
Lincoln County Board of Education to ignore their oaths 
to uphold the law for ten years.

It is inconceivable to the Court that, had the defendants 
established definite objective standards for the retention 
of its teachers and applied those standards to all its teach­

Memorandum Opinion on Rearing on Motion

ers alike, without distinction as to race, that either of
j these plaintiffs would have suffered the loss of her em- 
} ployment. The Court does not insist that seniority should 

be the determining factor in deciding who shall go and 
who shall remain, but in the ordinary habits of life, the 
Court does believe that, had two persons been equated on

12 Introduction to Marmion, Canto VI, Stanza 17, Sir Walter Scott.



the same standards, the more junior is the more likely to 
leave.

—  138a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion

The professional among the defendants, Mr. Norman, 
concedes that these plaintiffs were well-qualified. Had 
this not been true, there could have been no justification 
for their employment and continued re-employment to 
teach Negro children. But there were no standards. Ex­
cept for the protection afforded the teachers who had at­
tained tenure status under Tennessee law, the flexibility 
was so great that these teachers could be hired or fired 
to accommodate the vacillating whims of a majority of 
the defendant Board. Teachers are professional persons. 
They should not be left in a position to be buffeted about 
by ever changing wind. The day of acquiring personal 
power through control of our schools is gone.

The defendants were derelict in not fixing standards 
by which to employ and discharge non-tenure instructors 
should the occasion arise. The standards could have in­
cluded:

personality 
reputation 
physical defects 
manner of speech 
love of children 
cooperability 
disciplinary ability

philosophy 
general appearance 
attitude 
optimism
age-group interests 
sense of humor 
parent-student reactions

general appraisal.

Without any fixed standards at all, this Court cannot 
say that the defendants have carried the burden of prov­
ing by a preponderance of the evidence that they acted 
properly in comparing these plaintiffs with others and in 
deciding to dismiss the plaintiffs. The comparison only
with other Negro teachers on the same faculty was so re-

*



strictive that it resulted in discrimination against these 
plaintiffs. Cf. Franklin v. County School Board of Giles 
County, D. C. Va. (1965), 242 F. Supp. 371, 374.

So finding and concluding, the Court will issue a man­
datory injunction for the defendants forthwith to reinstate 
the plaintiffs to their most recent positions and salaries 
in the Lincoln County school system and to continue such 
employment of each plaintiff unless this Court, on good 
cause shown, modifies the injunction to permit dismissal 
of one or both such persons. The injunction will also re­
quire the defendant Board, within 90 days from its is­
suance, to establish definite objective standards for the 
employment and retention of teachers and to apply such 
standards to all tenure teachers, on the one hand, and 
non-tenure teachers, on the other, consistently with the 
due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitu­
tion of the United States.

The clerk will place this case on the trial docket to be 
sounded at the Federal Building, Winchester, Tennessee, 
on Monday, August 1, 1966, for the purpose of consider­
ing the setting of a trial and pre-trial conference on the 
issue of the compensation to which each plaintiff is en­
titled.

Counsel will forthwith undertake to agree on and sub­
mit an appropriate order herein for the Court’s considera­
tion, and, failing to so agree and submit by July 28, 1966, 
will so apprise the Court. Said order shall provide that 
this action shall remain open for the Court’s supervision 
until the compliance of the defendants with the defend­
ant Board’s plan of desegregation of May 10, 1965.

File:
C. G. NEESE,

United States District Judge.

—  139a —

Memorandum Opinion on Hearing on Motion



— 140a —

M o tio n  f o r  L e a v e  to  A m en d  A n s w er

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND A N S W E R - 
FILED AUG. 11, 1966.

Come now the defendants and move the Court for an 
order permitting them to amend their answer filed herein 
by adding thereto an additional or eighth defense which 
is exhibited to the Court and a copy of which is appended 
hereto.

The grounds of this motion are:

(1) The defendants’ attorneys by inadvertence omitted 
an express statement of this defense in drafting the An­
swer.

(2) The plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the allow­
ance of the amendment as matters relating to this defense 
were mentioned at the hearing on April 20, 1966.

(3) Justice requires that this amendment be allowed.

STEVENS and BAGLEY,
By: ROBERT W. STEVENS,

ROBERT W. STEVENS,
220 East College Street, 

Fayetteville, Tennessee, 
Attorneys for Defendants.

Granted:
August 11, 1966,

C. G. NEESE,
U. S. District Judge.



—  141a —

Order Filed August 15,1966

In the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 
For the Eastern District of Tennessee, 

Winchester Division.
MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE and v 

MRS. BERNICE L. PEEBLES,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCA­
TION OF LINCOLN COUNTY, 
TENNESSEE, etc., et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 781.

AMENDMENT TO ANSWER— FILED AUGUST 11, 1966.

Leave of the Court having first been obtained, the 
defendants file the following additional defense as a part 
of their Answer.

Eighth Defense.

The defendants further aver that the plaintiffs could 
have by the exercise of due diligence obtained employ­
ment of a similar nature with the defendants or others 
and thereby reduced their damages.

STEVENS and BAGLEY,
By: ROBERT W. STEVENS,

ROBERT W. STEVENS,
220 East College Street, 

Fayetteville, Tennessee, 
Attorneys for Defendants.

ORDER—FILED AUGUST 15, 1966.

This cause was heard on April 20, 1966 before the Hon­
orable Charles G. Neese, United States District Judge, 
sitting without intervention of a jury, upon the entire



O rd er  F ile d  A u g u s t  15,1966

record and especially upon the motion for temporary 
restraining order and/or preliminary injunction filed by 
the plaintiffs, the show cause order served upon defend­
ants, the answer to said motion filed by defendants, the 
evidence introduced by the respective parties, arguments 
of counsel, and was taken under advisement by the Court 
pending submission of memoranda of points and author­
ities which were subsequently filed by counsel, and from 
a consideration of all of which the Court finds and holds 
that the jurisdiction of the Court was properly invoked 
and that the plaintiffs are entitled to immediate relief as 
hereinafter provided for the reasons set forth in the 
Memorandum Opinion of the Court filed July 20, 1966 
which is incorporated herein by reference and made a 
part of this order, and is adopted and treated as the 
Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law made by the 
Court.

In accordance with said Memorandum Opinion hereto­
fore filed, It Is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged, Decreed 
and Enjoined as follows:

1. That the defendants, County Board of Education of 
Lincoln County, Tennessee, its Board Members, A. G. 
Jennings, Jr., Edwin Flint, Charles Delap, J. C. King, 
Thomas Smith, Tommy Warren, Tom Porter, Frank Er­
win, Joe Taft and Ernest Pendergrass, and Everett C. 
Norman, Superintendent of Schools of Lincoln County, 
Tennessee, their agents, employees and successors, shall 
forthwith reinstate the plaintiffs, Mrs. Elvira S. Rolfe 
and Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles, to comparable positions and 
salaries in the Lincoln County, Tennessee School System 
and shall continue such employment of each of said plain­
tiffs unless this Court, on good cause shown, modifies this 
injunction to permit dismissal of one or both such per­
sons.

—  142a —



2. That the said defendants shall, within 90 days from 
date of entry of this order, establish definite objective 
standards for the employment and retention of teachers in 
and for said School System and shall apply such stand­
ards to all tenure teachers, on the one hand, and non 
tenure teachers, on the other, consistently with the due 
process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution 
of the United States.

3. The Clerk will place this case on the trial docket to 
be sounded at the Federal Building, Winchester, Tennes­
see, on Monday, August 1, 1966, for the purpose of con­
sidering the setting of a trial and pre-trial conference on 
the issue of the compensation to which each plaintiff is 
entitled.

4. This action shall remain open for the Court’s super­
vision until the compliance of the defendants with the 
defendant Board’s plan of desegregation of May 10, 1965.

Enter: C. G. NEESE
United States District Judge.

Approved for Entry:
Z. ALEXANDER LOOBY,
AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.,
DAVID VINCENT,
JACK GREENBERG,
JAMES M. NABRIT III,

By AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR , 
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, 

STEVENS AND BAGLEY,
By ROBERT W. STEVENS, 

Attorneys for Defendants.

—  143a —

Order Filed August 15,1966



P r e tr ia l  O rd er

In the
UNITED STATES DISTBICT COUBT 
for the Eastern District of Tennessee, 

Winchester Division.

MBS. ELVIBA S. BOLFE and v 
MBS. BEBNICE L. PEEBLES,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

COUNTY BOABD OF EDUCA­
TION OF LINCOLN COUNTY, 
TENNESSEE, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action 
No. 781.

PRETRIAL ORDER— FILED AUG. 18, 1966.

This action came before the Court and the undersigned 
judge at a pretrial conference held on August 11, 1966, 
pursuant to Buie 16 of the Federal Buies of Civil Pro­
cedure. Avon Williams, Esq., appeared as counsel for 
the plaintiffs and Bobert W. Stevens, Esq., appeared as 
counsel for the defendants. The following actions were 
taken by the Court:

I. Jurisdiction: This is an action for wrongful dis­
charge from employment and breach of an employment 
agreement. The Court’s jurisdiction is invoked under 28 
U. S. C., §§ 1331 and 1343 (3) and 42 U. S. C., § 1983, 
and is not disputed.

II. The General Nature of the Claims of the Parties:

(a) The plaintiff Mrs. Bolfe claims that she is a quali­
fied and certified school teacher with eight years of ex­
perience, the last two of which were in the school system 
of the defendants in the school years 1963-1964 and 1964-



P r e tr ia l  O rd er

1965; that she was re-elected to her position as a science 
teacher in the West End School for the school year 1965- 
1966 and accepted such employment; that some three 
weeks after the commencement of the said school term, 
and on September 7, 1965, she was summarily discharged 
without fault on her part by the defendants; that said 
action was a breach of her contract of employment; and 
that she sustained a loss due to the defendants’ action 
and is entitled to reinstatement to a comparable position 
and compensation for damages arising from such breach.

(b) The defendant Mrs. Peebles claims that she is a 
qualified and certified mathematics school teacher; that 
she taught in the defendants’ school system during the 
school years 1963-1964 and 1964-1965; that in the Spring 
of 1965 she was reelected to her position as a mathematics 
teacher in the said school for the school year 1965-1966 
and accepted such employment; that some three weeks 
after the school term commenced, and on September 7, 
1965, she was summarily discharged without fault on her 
part from said employment; that said action of the de­
fendants was a breach of her contract of employment; 
and that.she sustained a loss due to the aforementioned 
action of the defendants and is entitled to re-instatement 
to the same or a comparable position and compensation 
for such breach of contract.

(c) The defendants claim that the discharge of the 
plaintiffs was necessitated by a reduced enrollment in 
West End School, which in turn reduced the number of 
teaching positions; that the plaintiffs did not have tenure 
under the Tennessee Teacher Tenure Law when dis­
charged; that there were no vacancies to which the plain­
tiffs could be transferred on September 8, 1965; that the 
respective plaintiffs had no contract for 1965-1966, except 
to the extent that they would have been eligible for a 
contract to teach at West End High School if they had

—  145a —



P r e tr ia l  O rd er

been retained; that the plaintiff Mrs. Peebles, following 
her dismissal, failed to report for an interview for a 
position in the defendants’ school system when requested 
so to do; that neither plaintiff left forwarding addresses 
with the defendants’ personnel when leaving Lincoln 
County; that neither plaintiff used reasonable diligence 
to obtain employment elsewhere such as to mitigate their 
respective damages.

III. Admissions and Stipulations: The following facts 
are established by counsel at the pretrial conference or 
by admissions in the pleadings:

(a) This Court has jurisdiction of the issues now being 
pretried under 28 U. S. C., §§ 1332 and 1343 (3) and 42 
U. S. C., § 1983.

(b) Mrs. Elvira S. Eolfe and Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles 
were employed as teachers by the defendants for the 
school years 1963-1964 and 1964-1965 and assigned to 
West End School.

(c) Each of the plaintiffs was summarily discharged 
by the defendants on September 7, 1965.

(d) Each of the plaintiffs was reelected by the defend­
ant Board as teachers in the Lincoln County School sys­
tem for the school year 1965-1966 in the Spring of 1965, 
but neither such plaintiff had signed a written contract 
of such employment at the time of their respective dis­
charges, and no such contract was presented to either 
plaintiff for signature.

(e) The plaintiff Mrs. Eolfe holds the degree of 
Bachelor of Science and is certified by the State of Ten­
nessee to teach general science, physics, chemistry and 
biology in grades one through nine in elementary schools. 
She had taught elsewhere for six years before coming to

—  146a —



P r e tr ia l  O rd er

Lincoln County for the school year 1963-1964. On the 
date of her discharge, Mrs. Rolfe was senior to eight 
teachers in the elementary schools of Lincoln County and 
was the junior science instructor in the system.

(f) The plaintiff Mrs. Peebles holds a bachelor’s de­
gree in, and is certified by the State of Tennessee to 
teach, mathematics. She had taught elsewhere for two 
years before joining the Lincoln County school system and 
was teaching courses in mathematics at West End School 
at the time she was summarily discharged. Effective at 
the beginning of the 1965-1966 school year, and on August 
20, 1965, when Mrs. Peebles was available for assignment 
to such position, Mr. Gordon Woods was employed to 
teach solid geometry, trigonometry and algebra I at Cen­
tral High School in Fayetteville, Tennessee. On the 
resignation of Mr. Wood, after the commencement of the 
school term, Mrs. Martha Crawford, a former teacher at 
said school, who had left the system because of a domestic 
problem, was employed to succeed Mr. Wood.

(g) Mr. John Taylor was employed on August 20, 1965 
by the defendant Board to teach mathematics at Flint- 
ville High School.

(h) The Court may consider as evidence, in connection 
with the claims of the plaintiffs for compensation and 
other relief, all pertinent evidence received heretofore on 
April 20, 1966 herein.

(i) Neither plaintiff held the status of tenure teacher 
under the Tennessee Tenure Law on September 8, 1965.

(j) The provision of the document entitled “ 1965-1967 
Rules, Regulations, and Minimum Standards, Tennessee 
State Board of Education, Nashville, Tennessee, July 
1965”  were promulgated properly under authority of 
statute and may be considered by the Court as having 
the same force as law.

—  147a —



IV. Contested Issues of Fact: The contested issue of 
fact remaining for decision is: to what damages or com­
pensation is each of the plaintiffs entitled!

Y. Contested Issue of Law: The contested issue of law 
which may not be fully implicit in the foregoing issue 
of fact is: what is the proper measure of damages for 
the breach of a contract of employment as a public school 
teacher, when the said teacher is wrongfully discharged!

VI. Exhibits: The following exhibits were offered:
(a) The plaintiffs’ exhibits:
Collective Exhibit No. 5 is a statement of the Lincoln 

County Department of Education listing the names of all 
teachers, race, education and qualifications, length of em­
ployment, tenure status, nature of subjects taught, as­
signed school, and date of employment of new teachers.

Exhibit No. 9 consists of copies of the teacher’s cer­
tificate of Mrs. Rolfe.

Exhibit No. 10 consists of the copy of the certificate 
of Mrs. Peebles.

Exhibit No. 11 is the letter of September 8, 1965 to 
Mrs. Peebles, signed by the defendant Mr. Norman and 
the defendant Mr. Jennings.

Collective Exhibit No. 12 is a document titled “ Hand­
book, Policies, Rules and Regulations * * * Lincoln 
County Board of Education, 1964-1965.”

Collective Exhibit No. 1 is a memorandum of May 4, 
1965, to the Tennessee Commissioner of Education from 
the defendant Mr. Norman.

Collective Exhibit No. 4 is a copy of the minutes of 
the defendant Board relating to the election, employment 
and discharge of teachers in the Lincoln County schools 
for the 1965-1966 school year.

—  148a —

Pretrial Order



(b) The defendants’ exhibits:

Collective Exhibit No. 15 is a document entitled “ 1965- 
1957 Rules, Regulations, and Minimum Standards, Ten­
nessee State Board of Education, Nashville, Tennessee, 
July, 1965.”

Collective Exhibit No. 16 is a copy of the personnel 
record of Mrs. Rolfe, under date of 8-27, 1963.

The authenticity and admissibility of these exhibits are 
stipulated. Any party may examine and cross-examine 
with respect to any exhibit admitted by the Court.

VII. Witnesses:
(a) Witnesses for the plaintiffs: Mrs. Elvira S. 

Rolfe, Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles.
(b) Witnesses for the defendants: Everett Norman, 

A. G. Jennings, Louise Maddox, Marian McAfee.
Witnesses not listed hereinabove will not be permitted 

to testify on the trial except by further order of the 
Court, but this restriction shall not apply to rebuttal 
witnesses.

VIII. Proposed Findings and Conclusions: Counsel will 
submit to the Court through the clerk proposed findings 
of fact and conclusions of law at least three days before 
the date of the commencement of this trial, citing with 
each such conclusion a minimum of one supporting au­
thority.

IX. Discovery: Neither party requires discovery time.

X. Other Matters:

(a) Either party may except to this pretrial order 
within five days after its filing, but unless modified or 
supplemented by the Court, this order shall be binding 
on all parties.

—  149a —

Pretrial Order



—  150a —

Pretrial Order

(b) With the material provided for in VIII, supra, 
counsel shall submit a trial brief in the same manner, in­
cluding therein the contested issues of law set fort under 
V, su pra .

(c) This pretrial order shall supplant the pleadings 
insofar as these claims of the plaintiffs are concerned.

(d) No more than three days before the commencement 
of the trial, counsel will stipulate the amount of salary 
called for by the contracts with the plaintiffs which the 
defendants have breached, and list as an aggregate the 
total amount each plaintiff would have received had the 
respective contracts been fully performed, or show to the 
Court at that time why same cannot be stipulated.

XI. Trial Information:

(a) This action is set for trial without a jury on Friday, 
August 26, 1966 at 9:00 o ’clock, a. m.

(b) The estimated length of the trial is one day.
(c) The possibility of settlement prior is considered 

poor.
File:

C. G. NEESE,
United States District Judge. 

Approved as to Form and Substance:

Of Counsel for the Plaintiffs,

Of Counsel for the Defendants.



—  151a —

Except ions to Pretrial Order

In the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
For the Eastern District of Tennessee, 

Western Division.
MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE and 

MRS. BERNICE L. PEEBLES,
Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Action 
*• No. 781.

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCA­
TION OF LINCOLN COUNTY, 
TENNESSEE, et al., Defendants. _

EXCEPTIONS TO PRETRIAL O R D ER- 
FILED AUG. 23, 1966.

1. The defendants except or object to paragraphs IV 
and V of the pretrial order in this cause in that they both 
fail to contain the following issue:

Whether the plaintiffs were wrongfully discharged 
solely because of their race.

Denied, August 26, 1966.
C. G. NEESE,

U. S. District Judge.
2. The defendants except to the following phrase in 

paragraph III (f), to wit: ‘ “when Mr. Peebles was avail­
able for assignment to such position”  which appears im­
mediately after the phrase ‘ ‘ Effective at the beginning of 
the 1965-1966 school year, and on August 20, 1965,” .

Gi’anted, August 26, 1966.
C. G. NEESE,

U. S. District Judge.
STEVENS and BAGLEY,

By: ROBERT W. STEVENS,
220 East College Street, 

Fayetteville, Tennessee, 
Attorneys for Defendants.



1

— 152a — 

P r o c e e d in g s

In the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
For the Eastern District of Tennessee, 

Winchester Division.

MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE and  ̂
MRS. BERNICE L. PEEBLES,

Plaintiffs,
vs.

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCA­
TION OF LINCOLN COUNTY, 
TENNESSEE, Et. Al.,

Defendants __

Civil Action 
No. 781.

The above-entitled case came on for trial before the 
Hon. C. G. Neese, Judge of the above-styled court, at the 
Federal Building, Winchester, Tennessee, on Friday, Au­
gust 26, 1966, at 9:00 o ’clock a. m., pursuant to notice.

Appearances:

Avon N. Williams, Jr., Esq., Appeared on behalf of 
the Plaintiffs.

Robert W. Stevens, Esq., Appeared on behalf of the 
Defendants.

* # # # # * #

3 The Court: Call the case, please, Clerk.
The Clerk: For trial, Civil Action No. 781, Mrs. 

Elvira S. Rolfe and Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles, Plaintiffs, 
versus County Board of Education of Lincoln County, 
Tennessee, et al., Defendants.

The Court: Are the plaintiffs ready!
Mr. Williams: They are, your Honor.
The Court: Are the defendants ready!



P r o c e e d in g s

Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: Gentlemen, first of all, we will present tp 

you the Pre-Trial Order for your signatures and then 
the Court will take up the matter of the various excep­
tions and motions in connection with it.

(Pre-Trial Order was signed by counsel at this time.)
The Court: As to the Plaintiffs’ exceptions to the Pre- 

Trial Order, do you have a copy there, Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Stevens: Yes, I have a copy of the exceptions, 

your Honor.
The Court: As to paragraphs II (a) and (b) is there 

any objection to the amendment as to the claims of the 
plaintiffs?

Mr. Stevens: No, your Honor, I don’t object.
4 The Court: Then in II, the correction in III (a), 

typographical error, is there any objection to that?
Mr. Stevens: No objection.
The Court: Those two then will be granted.
And then as to III (d), have you had a chance to go 

over that as to stipulation?
Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, I thought that 

would be added to what plaintiff claims.
The Court: No, this was under III (d), which would 

be a stipulation.
Mr. Stevens: Yes, I object to that.
The Court: On what ground, sir?
Mr. Stevens: One ground is, that at the Pre-Trial Con­

ference, Mr. Williams promised to furnish me with copies 
of these documents and he hasn’t done so.

The Court: Well, it would reduce the amount of proof 
here considerably if this could he done. Do you now have 
copies of them, Mr. Williams?

Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, I am sort of at 
sea—is that III (d)?

The Court: Yes, sir, and three in your exceptions. It

—  153a —



P r o c e e d in g s

has to do with the time these teachers entered on
5 their duties; how long they stayed there; and the 

handling of formal contracts; and the amount of
gross and net annual salaries paid September 15, 1965.

Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, I was looking at 
the wrong place.

The Court: You have no objection to that?
Mr. Stevens: That, as I understand, your Honor, is part 

of what plaintiff claims.
The Court: No, sir, this is a stipulation so it wouldn’t 

be necessary to waste a lot of time proving these things.
Mr. Stevens: I furnished him these figures. I am not 

going to object to that.
Mr. Williams: The only part of that he didn’t furnish, 

if your Honor please, is a statement in there that cus­
tomarily formal written contracts are not presented by 
the defendants or signed by the teachers until the first 
payday following the first month.

The Court: That was the proof before.
Mr. Stevens: That portion of it, your Honor, is the 

only part I can’t agree to.
The Court: Well, that was the proof before by your 

own witnesses, as I recall.
6 Mr. Stevens: The proof was, as I remember, they 

were signed by the time they got the first check.
As I understand the facts, they can sign it any time 
beginning back possibly July, can sign the contract.

The Court: Could you say until before the first payday, 
would you then agree?

Mr. Stevens: No, it would be------
The Court: The superintendent testified, I am certain 

about this, that the arrangements were made in accord­
ance with the state law thirty days before the end of 
the previous year, but so far as the actual physical sign­
ing of the contract, this was done by the time that the 
first salary check was received.

—  154a —



P r o ce ed in g s

Mr. Stevens: Yes, done by the time.
The Court: All right, so if we say until, on or before. 
Mr. Stevens: Yes, sir.
The Court: All right, the Court will make that correc­

tion.
Then in III (e), under four there—do you see that 

on page two that Mrs. Rolfe was certified by the State 
of Tennessee as an elementary school teacher? I think 

that was also proved in Greeneville.
7 Mr. Williams: As a matter of fact, that is Exhibif 

9 of the original trial, copy of that certificate.
The Court: Yes, sir. Is there any objection to that? 
Mr. Stevens: I didn’t understand, your Honor.
The Court: It is on page 2, marked No. 4, that they 

be added in paragraph III (e) following statement: “ Mrs. 
Rolfe was also certified by the State of Tennessee as an 
elementary school teacher.’ ’

Mr. Stevens: No objection.
The Court: Then as to various exhibits that are men­

tioned there, do you have any objection to any of those?
Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor, I objected to that. That 

is what I was talking about a moment ago, on the grounds 
that Mr. Williams was to furnish me that and promised 
to do so at the pre-trial conference.

The Court: Do you now have it present with you, Mr. 
Williams?

Mr. Williams: Yes, your Honor. If I so promised and 
failed to do so, I didn’t realize it. I am sorry. I have 

copies to furnish him at this time.
8 The Court: Let him look them over and maybe we 

can save some time.
(Documents handed to Mr. Stevens.)
Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, I have no objection to them 

being filed as exhibits which he is going to present, but 
I don’t agree that they are competent. He can present

—  155a —



P r o c e e d in g s

them as if he had presented them at the pre-trial con­
ference. I am not going to object to them being pre­
sented, but I don’t agree that they are competent evi­
dence.

The Court: Will you look at them and see if yon think 
they are. There is not much point in—unless we are going 
to say that they may be received in evidence—it is not 
going to do any good.

Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, I would agree that 
the United States Civil Service Commission’s notice of 
rating is competent, but I do not believe that the other 
three exhibits are competent until they are properly iden­
tified and presented by whoever signed those letters.

The Court: It has been the practice of this Court— 
Mr. Williams may not be familiar with it—to try to make 

it very clear that all exhibits are to be brought to 
9 the pre-trial conference, and unless they are 

brought or for some good reason showing that they 
were not available and could not be made available by 
diligence, the Court does not allow any exhibits to go 
into the record on the trial that were not exhibited at the 
pre-trial conference, because this could constitute a sur­
prise and the other side might not be able to rebutt any­
thing in connection with it.

So, do I understand you are objecting now to all of 
them except V (d)?

Mr. Stevens: One additional count, I also passed up 
paragraph (f), I think, list of official records relating to 
the pay which is received by Mrs. Rolfe.

I have no objection to that, if the Court please.
The Court: Let’s take them one at a time now. The 

letter dated August 12, 1966, from E. S. Hill, principal 
of Tennessee Valley High School, certifying that Mrs. 
Bernice Peebles applied for a teaching position on Jan­
uary 10, 1966. What is your objection to that?

—  156a —



P r o ce ed in g s

Mr. Stevens: I want to object to that one because he 
has taken a deposition and I think it is filed as an exhibit 

to the deposition.
10 Mr. Williams: Mr. Hill wasn’t available. His let­

ter is notarized.
Mr. Stevens: I object to it, if your Honor please, as 

being incompetent.
The Court: On what ground, why is it incompetent? 
Mr. Stevens: I think it is nothing but hearsay in this 

court.
The Court: All right.
As to the letter from Rev. Ezekiel Bell, certifying that 

Mrs. Peebles applied for another position or job.
Mr. Stevens: I have no objection to that.
The Court: All right.
Now, as to the letter from A. L. Bonds, at the IBM 

Space System Center, that she applied for a job there 
prior to April 14th.

Mr. Stevens: I object to that, yonr Honor.
The Court: On what grounds?
Mr. Stevens: On the ground that it is hearsay.
The Court: All right. Now as to (e), same thing with 

reference to Northrop Space Laboratories?
Mr. Stevens: Yes, sir, I object to that.
The Court: All right.

Then as to------
11 Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, also sub-

paragraph ( f) -------
The Court: He says he is agreeable to that.
Mr. Stevens: No objection to that.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, may I make a 

statement regarding that letter from E. S. Hill?
The Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I don’t think counsel can properly ob­

ject to that on the basis of hearsay. That is more in the

—  157a —



P r o c e e d in g s

nature of an affidavit than a letter. It is a sworn state­
ment from Mr. E. S. Hill.

The Court: Well, the Court can’t receive affidavits be­
cause the other side has no chance to cross-examine.

So as to Item 5 in the exceptions, 5 (a), the objection 
is sustained.

Now as to (b), the amendment is allowed and that will 
be marked.

Do you gentlemen have the number of the last ex­
hibit?

Mr. Williams: No, I don’t. The last one I know of is 
Exhibit 14, I believe, hut I am not positive, your 

Honor.
12 The Court: Here is one 16 in the pre-trial order. 

Do you know of any further than 16!
Mr. Stevens: No, your Honor.
The Court: All right, (b) then will be marked Collec­

tive Exhibit 17, or just Exhibit 17.
Mr. Williams: The original copy of that, if your Honor 

please, was appended as an exhibit to the desposition of 
Mr. Bell, which we propose to offer.

The Court: You have already offered it and it is now 
an exhibit, if you will get it out and mark it.

Is that Ezekial Bell?
Now as to (c), the objection is sustained.
As to (d), that would be marked Exhibit No. 18.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, since that is an 

official Civil Service Rating, may we be permitted to have 
a copy of that made and the original removed from the 
file?

The Court: Without objection, you may.
Mr. Stevens: Oh, yes, your Honor.
The Court: As to (e), your objection is sustained.
As to (f), that would be admitted as Collective Exhibit 

No. 19.

—  158a —



P r o ce ed in g s

Mr. Williams: Your Honor, we would like to make
13 the same request as to the official Internal Revenue 

forms in Collective Exhibit 19.
The Court: Without objection from Mr. Stevens, that 

may be done.
Mr. Stevens: No objection, your Honor.
The Court: Mr. Stevens, under V there, he wants to 

add as witnesses, E. S. Hill and Rev. Ezekial Bell.
Mr. Stevens: No objection, your Honor.
The Court: That will be allowed.
Mr. Williams: That is a typographical error, your 

Honor. That should be paragraph VI of the exceptions, 
your Honor.

The Court: All right, the Court then will make that VI. 
And all of the rulings of the Court are indicated in the 

margin of the document on file.
Mr. Williams: As to these exhibits which the Court de­

nied, could that be appended?
The Court: They may be marked for identification only 

as exhibits—what are there, two of them?
Mr. Williams: Three of them.
The Court: They may be marked Exhibits 20, 21 and 

22 for identification only. When it says for identi-
14 fication only, it means that they are not admitted 

by the Court and will not be considered by the
Court.

The Court: Now as to the defendant’s exception to the 
Pre-Trial Order, Mr. Stevens, the Court has already de­
cided this question of whether or not there was a wrong­
ful discharge because of race, so No. 1 is denied. The 
Court will strike in III (f) of the Pre-Trial Order, the 
words “ when Mrs. Peebles was available to assignment 
of such position,”  because the Court recalls you did not 
so stipulate at the time of the Pre-Trial Conference. 

Then as to the defendant’s motion to amend, do you

—  159a —



P r o c e e d in g s

have any objection to No. 1, Mr. Williams, to add the 
name of Nathaniel Almon as a witness for the defendant?

This was the fellow you said some man in the school 
system you didn’t know his name. Is this the name of 
the man?

Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor. We have since taken his 
deposition.

Mr. Williams: I object, if your Honor please, but I 
don’t have any grounds.

The Court: Your objection will be overruled.
Then as to 2, the various contracts, 1, 2, 3 and 4,

15 I assume there will be no objection to those, Mr. 
Williams ?

Mr. Williams: No, no objection.
The Court: They will be marked then respectively as 

Exhibits 23, 24, 25 and 26.
(Thereupon the documents referred to were marked as 

“ Exhibits 23, 24, 25, 26” , respectively.)
What do you say about these transcripts, five and six 

there ?
Mr. Williams: I do object to the transcripts, if your 

Honor please.
The Court: All right, the Court will sustain the objec­

tion. I don’t believe that that is material.
I believe that takes care of all of the amendments and 

exceptions to the Pre-Trial Order, gentlemen.
Call and swear the witnesses.
Mr. Stevens: The last three are in the record, your* 

Honor, the last three you mentioned.
The Court: Where in the record are they, Mr. Stevens? 

Where are these four contracts to be marked as exhibits? 
Mr. Williams: They are attached to the motion, if your 

Honor please.
16 I have other copies.

The Court: All right, let those copies be filed.

—  160a —



P r o c e e d in g s

Mr. Stevens: I would also like to file the two that you 
disallowed for identification.

The Court: They will be marked as the next two num­
bers for identification only, and they are not admitted in 
evidence.

(Thereupon the documents referred to were marked 
“ Exhibits Nos. 27 and 28 for Identification only.” )

Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, I don’t have copies 
yet of all of Mr. Williams’ exhibits which he has exhib­
ited here.

The Court: Well, they are here and may be used by 
either side.

He says he thinks he gave you copies.
Mr. Stevens: I have copies of four. I don’t have all of 

them.
Mr. Williams: I intended to give you copies of all of 

them.
As to the Internal Revenue forms, Exhibit 19, if your 

Honor please, I don’t have copies myself. They were 
handed to me less than ten minutes ago, but as to 

17 all the others, I thought I had furnished those to 
Mr. Stevens.

The Court: Well, he had no objection to that one any 
way.

Mr. Stevens: I have no copy of the letter from Ezekial 
Bell, which is marked Exhibit 17. I have no copy of the 
Civil Service record.

The Court: Let’s go ahead and swear the witnesses. 
We have these witnesses all here.

(Thereupon the witnesses were duly sworn by the 
Clerk.)

The Court: Is the rule requested by either side?
Mr. Williams: Yes, we would request it, your Honor.
The Court: Put the witnesses under the Rule, Mr. 

Marshal.

—  161a —



P r o c e e d in g s

(Thereupon the witnesses retired from the Courtroom.) 
The Court: Now, did you get all the copies you want, 

Mr. Stevens!
Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor.
One thing, about the findings of fact, I had to leave 

two blanks, which was information that Mr. Williams is 
now furnishing, in one instance, and which I now

18 have as a result of taking the deposition in the 
other instance.

The Court: All right, would you give me those.
Mr. Stevens: In the finding of fact, No. 12-------
The Court: Yes, sir.
Mr. Stevens: That figure is $1739.43.
The Court: All right, I have inserted it.
Mr. Stevens: And No. 13, that is $1425.25.
The Court: I have inserted that.
Mr. Stevens: Thank you.
The Court: All right, call your first witness for the 

plaintiffs.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, the plaintiffs 

would respectfully state to the Court at this time that we 
feel the burden is now on the defendants to go forward.

The issue in this case, as stated by the Court in its Pre- 
Trial Order, the contested issue of fact remaining for 
decision is what damages or compensation is each of the 
plaintiffs entitled?

The issue of law is, which may be fully implicit, that 
is, what is the proper measure of damages when a teacher 
is wrongfully discharged?

Now, if the Court please, in our trial brief we set
19 forth the belief that the measure of damages is the 

amount which the teacher would have earned, that
is back pay diminished by earnings in the meantime.

Now, the back pay has been stipulated by counsel. The 
earnings of Mrs. Rolfe have been introduced as an exhibit.

—  162a —



Mrs. Peebles testified at the hearing on April 20th, and 
if counsel desires, we will put her on to testify again, 
that she has earned nothing.

At this point there is nothing more that we feel the 
plaintiffs need to prove to make out their case on these 
issues.

The Court: Yes, I think on mitigation the burden of 
proof is on the defendants, and, of course, the defendants 
may show any fact that they have in mitigation, and I 
agree with counsel that the damages for this breach of 
contract are what would have come to the respective 
plaintiffs had the contract continued, less what the plain­
tiff might earn in some other employment by reasonable 
diligence.

I think that is the law in Tennessee, and it is also the 
law in the Civil Rights Act.

Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
The Court: I think almost stated in that same lan­

guage.
20 Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.

The Court: All right, call your first witness for the 
defendant.

Thereupon—
EVERETT NORMAN

was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendant, and 
after having been first duly sworn, was examined and tes­
tified as follows:

—  163a —

Testimony of Everett Norman

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Please state your name, age and occupation, please, 
sir?

A. Everett Norman; 56 years of age; superintendent of 
Lincoln County Schools.



Q. Where do you live!
A. Near Fayetteville, Tennessee.
Q. What is your official position, Mr. Norman!
A. Superintendent of Schools.
Q. Was that your position in the years 1964-1965, and 

1965-1966!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Norman, you were present at the previous hear­

ings in this case and testified at that time!
A. Yes, sir.

Q. I will ask you whether or not on September 8th, 
21 1965, you had any knowledge of an elementary

teaching certificate issued to Mrs. Eolfe?
A. No, sir, I did not.
Q. When she was discharged did you have any discus­

sion with her relative to her dismissal!
A. Yes, sir, we did.
Q. When was that?
A. I don’t remember the date.
Q. The approximate time?
A. Approximately the 8th of September.
Q. In that discussion, did she mention the fact that 

she had an elementary certificate?
A. No, sir, she did not.
Q. When was the first time you ever knew she had an 

elementary certificate?
A. When I saw it in Greeneville.
Q. Is it true that she offered to give you the elemen­

tary certificate at your office sometime prior to her dis­
missal probably in the Spring before?

A. I do not remember such situation.
Q. Now, at the time of her dismissal, was there a va­

cancy in any elementary teaching position in Lincoln 
County ?

A. No, sir.

—  164a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. Did a vacancy thereafter occur?
22 A. Yes, sir.

Q. At what date?
A. Approximately November, sometime the early part of 

November, I believe.
Q. I will ask you whether or not Mrs. Rolfe would 

have been eligible for that position?
A. According to what I saw in Greeneville, yes.
Q. If she had the certificate?
A. That’s right, sir.
Q. Where was that position?
A. Petersburg.
Q. Petersburg Elementary School?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is part of the Lincoln County School Sys­

tem?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you fill that position?
A. We did, yes, sir.
Q. Who did you fill it with?
A. Mrs. Peggy Eddins.
Q. Was she a tenure teacher?
A. No, sir.
Q. If Mrs. Eolfe—did Mrs. Rolfe ever apply, either 

before her dismissal or after her dismissal, for a
23 teaching position in the elementary school?

A. Not to my knowledge; not to me.
Q. Your records do not reveal that?
A. No.
Q. I will ask you whether or not you would have em­

ployed Mrs. Rolfe for this position on or about November 
1st, had you known of her certificate to teach in elemen­
tary school?

A. I would have recommended her, yes, because the 
lady we hired did not have any experience in elementary 
field either.

—  165a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. You would have recommended her?
A. Yes.
Q. Would your recommendation have been accepted?
A. I think so.
Q. Is it accepted in these matters?
A. Usually, yes, sir.
Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, I have another exhibit to file 

here. I didn’t file it this morning.
The Court: All right. Do you know the number of it? 

Mr. Stevens: I think it is 15, your Honor. I have a
24 copy here. I can introduce, this, your Honor.

The Court: All right. It is already in evidence.
You can use that one if there is no objection by Mr. 
Williams.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Mr. Norman, I hand you a paper 
that has been marked as an exhibit in this case and ask 
you what that is?

A. This is the personnel record that is filed by each 
teacher to stay in the office as a record.

Q. All teachers file them?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That one in your hand, is that a copy of whose 

record ?
A. It is a copy of Mrs. Rolfe’s record.
The Court: That is Collective Exhibit 16, if we need 

to know for the record.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, I might also 

state that counsel—by way of incrimination—promised 
also to furnish me a copy of that at the Pre-Trial hearing. 

Mr. Stevens: I am sorry.
The Court: All right.
Mr. Stevens: I knew I was to furnish some figures and 

things, and did, but I forgot about this.
25 Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Who signed that?

A. Mrs. Rolfe.

—  166a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. Who made it out?
A. She filled it out.
Q. Does it state what type of certificate she has?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What type does it state she has?
A. High School Certificate.
Q. Does it state anything about elementary school cer­

tificate ?
A. No, sir.
Q. Where is the original of that record now?
A. In my office.
Q. Been there all the time?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was it first put in your office?
A. This is signed 8/27/63, sir.
Mr. Stevens: Since it is already of record, your Honor, 

I won’t introduce it further.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Now, what salary would Mrs. 

Rolfe have made if she had been given the elementary 
job at Petersburg?

A. For the remaining portion of the year, she 
26 would have received $3272.50.

Q. That, of course, is gross?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I will ask you what difference the amount 

what she would have made on the job from which she 
was dismissed?

A. It would have been the same.
Q. She could have made the same at that job as she 

made at the other?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I will ask you, Mr. Norman, whether or not at 

the time Mrs. Peebles was dismissed there were any va­
cancies in any high school teaching positions in Lincoln 
County ?

— 167a —
Testimony of Everett Norman



A. Yes, sir, we had a resignation at Central, Mr. Woods 
resigned, and there was a vacancy.

Q. Was that the time she was dismissed or later?
A. After she was dismissed.
Q. Now, did yon have thereafter any position for which 

she was qualified, according to her certificate and the in­
formation in your office?

A. Only this one at Central High School.
Q. I will ask you whether or not there was a new posi­

tion created known as a visiting teacher?
27 Mr. Williams: I object to leading.

The Court: Don’t lead the witness, Mr. Stevens.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Did you ever have a position 

thereafter that Mrs. Peebles was qualified to take?
A. We had the elementary------
Mr. Williams: Objected to, your Honor, inasmuch as 

he has already answered the question. He stated he had 
none. Objected to as being repetitious and cross-exami­
nation of his own witness.

The Court: The Court doesn’t think it is cross-exami­
nation, but the Court has received all of this evidence 
before. I will be glad to listen to it again.

Are you talking about now the position where some­
body in the office called Mrs. Peebles up?

Mr. Stevens: Yes, sir.
The Court: The Court is familiar with all that.
Mr. Stevens: It was disputed.
The Court: I will be glad to hear it.
Mr. Stevens: He testified, but the other two witnesses 

didn’t. I won’t go into it further at this time except to 
ask this, if the Court please, for I don’t think it was 
testified to before.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) What salary would the visit-
28 ing teacher position have paid, and did it pay?

A. The same as any classroom teacher.
Q. What would have been the difference between what

—  168a —

Testimony of Everett Norman .



Mrs. Peebles would have made in that position and what 
she was making as a high school teacher?

A. There would not be any difference.
Q. If you testified before, don’t answer this question, 

but if you did not, can you tell me when that position 
was available?

A. I don’t know whether I testified or not, but that 
position was available February 15th.

Q. 1966?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you whether or not the salary was all 

that it paid?
A. No, there was travel to it because it would involve 

going from schools into homes.
Q. Involved travel?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who paid the travel expense?
A. We would pay the travel expense.
Q. I don’t believe you testified before the nature of 

that position. What was the duties?
A. The job was for the visiting teacher to consult 

29 with the regular classroom teacher concerning prob­
lems of students, then the visiting teacher would go 

into the home of the child that had the problem and 
gather the information that it could that might be helpful 
to relieving the child’s problem and then report back to 
the classroom teacher.

Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, I would like to 
make an offer of proof as to some matters here that I 
think your Honor ruled are not to be heard in this hear­
ing.

The Court: In connection with what?
Mr. Stevens: I would like to show the time at which 

the school teachers of Lincoln County were assigned to 
their schools in the Spring of 1965 for the year 1965-1966.

The Court: It has been stipulated, but the Court will 
be glad to hear it.

—  169a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Mr. Norman, what time of the 
year are teachers in your system assigned to a particular 
school?

A. To comply with the State law, we must do that thirty 
days prior to the expiration of the school year in which 
we are operating. In this case, it was the early part 
of April.

Q. You are speaking of their election or their assign­
ment?

30 A. Their election.
Q. When do you assign a particular school?

A. They are assigned approximately a week later.
Q. Was that done in the Spring of 1965?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that done in the Spring of 1964?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is that when the plaintiffs, as well as all other 

teachers re-elected, were assigned that year?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stevens: Now, if your Honor please, I would like 

to offer proof relative to the comparing the qualifications 
of Mrs. Crawford to Mrs. Peebles.

The Court: You can do that and it will appear in the 
record at this point, but do it in the absence of the Court 
either after we adjourn or at some recess, whenever you 
get the court reporter and Mr. Williams available to 
do it.

The Court feels that that issue has been determined by 
the Court.

Mr. Stevens: I would like to offer proof that there 
were no other non-tenure teachers teaching in Lincoln
County System at the time Mrs. Rolfc-------

The Court: That may also be done in the same
31 manner.

Mr. Stevens: That is as to Science teachers, and 
then I would like to offer proof as to non-tenure teachers

—  170a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



in the system at the time of Mrs. Peebles’ dismissal, who 
were teaching High School mathematics.

The Court: That may also be done.
Mr. Stevens: And comparing of those with Mrs. 

Peebles.
The Court: That may also be done.
Mr. Stevens: I would also like to offer proof as to lack 

of knowledge on the part of the defendants or any method 
of anticipating the loss of enrollment at West End High 
School, and the reason for that.

The Court: That may also be done.
The Court has received that evidence.
Mr. Stevens: I had some additional, your Honor, to 

amplify it. It is along the same lines.
I believe there is no use of introducing exhibits that 

have already been marked for identification, but I am 
not certain whether or not it was admitted, and that is 
the Buies, Begulations, and Minimum Standards of Ten­

nessee—I believe that was 17.
32 The Court: That is Collective Exhibit 15. It is 

already in evidence. You mean this book right 
here? Is this the one you are talking about, Mr. Stevens?

Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: That is already in evidence.
Mr. Stevens: As a part of offering proof in these cases, 

I would want to offer the exhibits which were denied this 
morning as being immaterial and were marked for identi­
fication only, which are the records of the transcript of 
Mrs. Martha Murray Crawford, and the transcript of 
Mrs. Peebles.

The Court: That may also he done. However, unless 
there is some explanation, they will appear in the record, 
although this Court will not consider them.

Mr. Stevens: I would also like to offer as proof------
I will ask this question. You might let me introduce it.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Mr. Norman, where did the money

—  171a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



come from with which the salaries of Mrs. Peebles and 
Mrs. Eolfe were paid, and where was the source of those 
funds?

Mr. Williams: Objected to, your Honor.
33 The Court: Objection sustained. That is not im­

portant.
Mr. Stevens: I would like to offer that, your Honor. 
The Court: That may be made as an offer of proof. 
Mr. Stevens: I would like to offer, also, if the Court 

please, evidence as to whether the desegregation plan or 
assurance of compliance called for the re-assignment of 
teachers.

The Court: You may make such an offer.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
(Thereupon, the following is an offer of proof on behalf 

of the defendants, which was made at the close of the 
proceedings, but is placed in the record at this time for 
the purpose of continuity of defendants’ testimony and 
evidence.)

34 (OFFEE OF PEOOF BY DEFENDANTS
OUT OF PEESENCE OF THE COUBT.)

EVERETT NORMAN,
resumed the witness stand at the request of the Defend­
ant, and having previously been duly sworn, was ex­
amined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Mr. Norman, you are recalled in order that we can 
make an offer of proof and in order that I may ask you 
questions and let your answers be shown in the record, 
because this is evidence that is ruled out and this is 
only for the purpose of making a record of what your

—  172a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



testimony would have been. Of course, you are considered 
as still being under oath.

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Norman, I will ask you whether or not 

you are acquainted with the contracts that were made 
between your Board of Education and Mrs. Rolfe and 
Mrs. Peebles for the year 1964-65, and I hand you here 
Exhibit No. 23 and Exhibit No. 25, and ask you if these 
are such contracts'?

Are those copies of the contracts made with the plain­
tiffs!

A. Yes, they are.
Q. They are signed by the plaintiffs!

A. Yes, sir.
35 Q. I will ask you to read next to the last paragraph 

of the contract?
Mr. Williams: Objected to as being redundant and repe- 

tious because it is already in the record.
Mr. Stevens: Go ahead and read it.
A. “ It is further agreed that should school attendance 

decrease to the extent that the teaching position is ter­
minated because it cannot be justified under rules and 
regulations of State Board of Education, this contract 
may be cancelled at the discretion of the Board of Edu­
cation. ’ ’

Q. Was the contract between the plaintiffs here before 
us the same as those in the wording?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, I hand you Exhibit No. 24 and Exhibit No. 

26 and ask you what these are copies of?
A. These are copies of the 1965-66 contracts that would 

have been initiated for that school year.
Q. What do you mean by “ initiated” , would have been 

what?
A. That would have been put in practice had they been 

signed.

—  173a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. Are they the same as contracts prepared for the 
other teachers for that year?

36 A. Yes, sir, identical.
Q. All identical. I notice those contracts were not 

signed. When could they have been signed?
A. Any time after their official notice between that and 

thirty days or the first payday of the teacher.
Q. Now, when would that have been?
A. September 15th would have been the first payday 

for this contract.
Q. When is the first time they could have come in and 

signed those contracts?
A. They could have been signed after the first of July.
Q. Any time after the first of July?
A. That’s right.
Q. Mr. Norman, when these teachers were dismissed on 

September 8th, were there any other non-tenure Science, 
High School Science teachers in your system?

A. No, sir, I don’t think so.
Q. Mrs. Rolfe was the only non-tenure Science teacher?
A. That’s right.
Q. Were there in your system at that time any other 

non-tenure High School Mathematic teachers?
A. Yes, sir.

37 Q. Who were they?
A. Mr. Taylor at Plintville was a non-tenure 

teacher, and Mr. Wood at Central was non-tenure.
Q. Now, when did the school term begin at Flintville?
A. The third Monday in July.
Q. Would you tell the Court, generally, the qualifica­

tions of Mr. Taylor as compared to Mrs. Peebles?
Mr. Peebles: That is objected to as being incompetent.
Mr. Stevens: Go ahead and answer.
Mr. Williams: And for the record, it is not—no proper 

foundation been laid.

—  174a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



A. Did I understand you, to compare------
Q. Mrs. Peebles, tell us the qualifications as his com­

pared to her’s.
A. Mr. Taylor’s qualifications?
Q. Yes, that’s right, as a Math, teacher.
A. Mr. Taylor graduated from Middle Tennessee State 

University with an excellent record.
Mr. Williams: Objected to. His record speaks for itself.

Mr. Stevens: I would like to remind counsel that I
38 am offering this proof. It has been excluded and

I have a right to get it in the record.
Mr. Williams: I have a right to object to what you 

get into the record too.
Mr. Stevens: I have a right to put it in the record. 

The Court has already excluded it and I have a right 
to put it in to show what was excluded. That is all this 
is for.

A. (Continued) Mr. Taylor went to work in July and 
he had just graduated from Middle Tennessee State Uni­
versity with a creditable record that he had majored in 
Mathematics and had minored in Industrial Arts. His 
mother was a teacher, had been a teacher in both the 
City and County system there.

Mrs. Peebles graduated from A. & I. University and 
had claimed one year of experience in Nashville at Chris­
tian Institute, which was denied by the State Department 
of Education—not denied, but not allowed—and then 
her experience is two years in teaching Mathematics at 
West End High School.

Q. What do you mean by “ not allowed’ ’ ?
A. Not allowed as creditable service toward retirement.
Q. How did her scholastic record compare with that 

of Mr. Taylor?
A. Well, I would say Mr. Taylor had taken more

39 difficult courses------  (Interrupted).
Mr. Williams: Objected to.

—  175a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



— 176a —
T e s tim o n y  o f  E v e r e t t  N orm a n

A. (Continued) ------ than the transcript of Mrs. Peebles
had shown.

Q. How would you compare the record and qualifica­
tions of Mr. Wood as compared to those of Mrs. Peebles 
as a High School Mathematics teacher?

Mr. Williams: Objection.
A. Mr. Woods came to us from Marshall County. He 

had had one year of teaching experience there at Peters­
burg High School. He had a major in Mathematics and 
he came with a good recommendation from the Marshall 
County Department of Education.

Q. At the time you employed Mr. Taylor and at the 
time you employed Mr. Wood, did you have any knowl­
edge of the fact that there might be or would be an extra 
Mathematics teacher at West End!

A. No.
Mr. Williams: We object.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Did you have a way of knowing 

what students might attend or what students might not 
attend West End prior to beginning of school in Fayette­
ville ?

A. No, I did not.
Mr. Williams: Objected to as incompetent.

40 Q. Did you receive any information from either 
Moore County, Giles County, or Marshall County 

that those schools were to be integrated for the year 
1965-66?

Mr. Williams: Objected to as incompetent and irrelevant.
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you receive any information officially or un­

officially ?
A. No, sir.
Q. No information to that effect at all?
A. None whatever.
Q. When were you able to ascertain the loss of enroll­

ment at West End?



A. One week after school had started.
Mr. Williams: Same Objection.
Q. Was there any increase in the student body at 

Central High School in Fayetteville at that time?
A. No, I do not think so.
Q. The fact some students transferred from West End 

to Central did not cause the student body at Central to 
be greater than it was the year before?

Mr. Williams: Objected to as leading and suggestive, 
and incompetent.

A. The enrollment was about the same as the pre-
41 ceding year.

Q. After the beginning of the school term of 1965-66 
at West End, and Central, were there any board meetings 
prior to September 7th?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that?
A. The Board meets on the first Monday of each month 

regularly.
Q. Well, so then when was the last meeting of the 

Board prior to September 7th?
A. I don’t recall, Mr. Stevens.
Q. Well, would it be----- -
Mr. Williams: Objected to as leading.
Q. (Continued) Would it have been the first Monday 

night in August?
A. The first Monday night in the month.
Q. At that time did you have any vacancy for any 

Mathematic teacher in high school?
Mr. Williams: Objected to as leading and suggestive. 
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you have any vacancy for any High School 

Science teacher?
A. No, sir.

42 Q. Had you had since the re-election of Mrs. Rolfe 
any non-tenure Science teachers in the system?

Testimony of Everett Norman



A. Since the employment------
Q. Had you elected any non-tenure Science teachers 

after Mrs. Rolfe was re-elected?
Mr. Williams: Objected to as repetitions.
A. We elected Mrs. Rolfe and one other Science teacher 

at the same time.
Q. They were the last Science teachers elected prior 

to her dismissal?
A. That’s right.
Q. I believe that you testified at the former hearing 

that there was a vacancy in the High School Mathematics 
teaching position sometime after school started on the 
resignation of Mr. Wood?

A. That’s right.
Q. At that time did you compare Mrs. Peebles’ qualifi­

cations with any other teacher?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you consider her for the job?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. State generally the difference between the qualifica­

tions of Mrs. Martha Murray Crawford and those of 
Mrs. Peebles?

43 Mr. Williams: Objected to as being incompetent.
Q. What I want you to state is the qualifications 

which were considered in making a choice?
A. Well, the two transcripts were compared as to the 

type of courses that the two people had taken.
Mrs. Crawford was found to have attended Peabody and 

did some of her Mathematics work at Vanderbilt, and she 
graduated from Peabody with the Founder’s Medal in 
Mathematics, and she also had had eight years of suc­
cessful teaching experience, and Mrs. Rolfe, we find 
that------

Q. Before you leave Mrs. Crawford, was Mrs. Crawford 
a tenure teacher?

—  178a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



A. At this time she was not.
Mr. Williams: Again, I object to leading questions.
Q. Was she or not ever a tenure teacher at that time?
Mr. Williams: Objection.
A. She would have been with one more year of teaching.
Q. With one more year?
A. Right.

Q. Go ahead and tell us about Mrs. Peebles as
44 compared to Mrs. Crawford.

A. Mrs. Peebles graduated from A. & I. University 
with a major in Mathematics. I believe that is the only 
field in which she is certified, and the only experience that 
she had had in our school system, and I could not say that 
her work had been outstanding.

Q. What about Mrs. Crawford’s work?
A. Mrs. Crawford’s work was outstanding. She had 

been teaching modem Math, which we were trying to 
initiate in our High School, and I believe that Mrs. 
Peebles had not had an opportunity to teach modern 
Mathematics.

Q. What about the subjects that each took?
Mr. Williams: Same objection. The original objection 

stands to all these questions.
Mr. Stevens: I realize you object to all of them. I 

concede and agree that you object to every bit of it.
A. The Board considered the courses that Mrs. Crawford 

took were certainly over and above what it took to 
certify her in the field, wherein Mrs. Peebles records 
shows she took most of the courses that would just certify 
her; no enrichment courses.

Q. Which one took the hardest courses?
A. I would say Mrs. Crawford.

45 Q. Which one took the hardest Mathematics 
courses ?

Mr. Williams: Objected to.

— 179a —
Testimony of Everett Norman



A. I think Mrs. Crawford’s record speaks that her 
courses are considered more difficult than some of those 
taken by Mrs. Peebles.

Q. Does Mrs. Crawford have a minor ?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. What was it1?
A. I don’t remember.
Q. Do you know whether or not Mrs. Peebles’ tran­

script showed she had a minor?
A. I don’t believe it did.
Q. Were non-tenure teachers considered new applicants 

each year, or not?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. At what time, before or after assignment?
A. Before assignment.
Mr. Stevens: I believe that’s all.
Mr. Williams: I wish to cross-examine the witness.
Mr. Stevens: No, you don’t. I decline cross-examination. 

You don’t understand what we are doing.
46 Mr. Williams: Let the record show that counsel 

proposed to cross-examine the witness in connection 
with this offer of proof and that he declined to be ex­
amined.

(Thereupon the offer of proof was completed and the 
following transpired in the presence of the Court:)

The Court: Cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mr. Norman, when a teacher applies for employment 
in a school system, do you make an initial personnel rec­
ord such as that, or does the teacher make it themselves 
such as that shown on Collective Exhibit No. 16?

A. Is that the one I had?
Q. Yes, the one you had this morning.

—  180a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



A. Yes, the teacher fills that out herself when she has 
been employed.

Q. And that becomes a part of the office record?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What provision do you have for keeping that up 

to date!
A. What reason?

47 Q. What provision do you have for keeping that
up to date?

A. Any time that a teacher has another certification 
they would want it on their record.

Q. Yes, sir. Now, then, when a teacher brings or ad­
vises you that she has another certification, do you require 
her to present the certification at your office?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When she presents it at your office, does she do it, 

is it incumbent on her to do any more than that?
A. No, sir, it is filed with her record.
Q. No notation is made on that particular document, is 

there? The certificate is simply filed with her record 
there at your office?

A. It is filed with her record, yes, sir.
Q. So that if Mrs. Rolfe brought in her certification in 

May, 1965, brought in her elementary certificate, it would 
have been placed in her file and it wouldn’t be any nota­
tion on that record any way, would there?

A. No, that’s true.
Q. Now, when a teacher is discharged, what is the cus­

tom of your office with regard to returning or not return­
ing her certification that she has left on file in your office?

Is it customary to return that to the teacher?
48 A. When she calls for it, yes.

Q. You have no receipt book in your office or any­
thing for those, do you?

A. Not for that; no, sir.

—  181a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. What would happen would be a clerical employee in 
your office would simply mail it out to the teacher?

A. Either that or give it personally.
Q. Or give it to her personally?
A. Eight.
Q. I think you said you had no recollection—you did 

not remember discussing an elementary certificate with 
Mrs. Rolfe at the time of her discharge in September, 
1965. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.
Q. It could have occurred and you just don’t remem­

ber it?
A. I don’t remember it.
Q. Now, you said that thereafter in November you had 

a vacancy in Petersburg School. On the very date that 
you discussed this with Mrs. Rolfe, that is on the very 
date that you discharged her, you had a vacancy in High­
land Rim School to which you assigned Miss Alma Gra­
ham, didn’t you, for which you hired her? Doesn’t the 
exhibit I hand you------

Mr. Williams: I would like for the superintendent 
49 to be handed a copy of Collective Exhibit No. 5.

I have a photocopy here. Would counsel agree that 
I may use this?

Mr. Stevens: Go ahead.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Will you look on the seventh page 

of that, please. We don’t have the pages numbered, but 
I believe it is on the seventh page, and see if that doesn’t 
reflect you employed a white teacher by the name of Miss 
Alma Graham, a new white teacher, and assigned her to 
the third grade of Highland Rim School on September 7th, 
1965?

A. That lady was employed—I don’t see the date.
Q. You don’t see the date on there, on the far right- 

hand column. It says “ Date of Employment (New Teach­
ers)” ?

—  182a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



— 183a —
T e s tim o n y  o f  E v e r e t t  N orm a n

A. There is no date on that particular------
Mr. Williams: May I compare that with my photocopy? 
Q. (By Mr. Williams) You had page eight. Look on 

page 7, Miss Alma Graham, second from the bottom?
A. Yes, that’s correct.
Q. Now then, Mr. Norman, before discharging Mrs. 

Rolfe, did you make any effort at all to find out whether 
or not she was certified for Elementary School?

A. No, sir, I felt like it would be on her record.
Q. Well, did you go and look at her record?

50 A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did you do that?

A. Before they were discharged to see what they could 
teach.

Q. How did you keep that record; is it kept in an en­
velope or filed in a file case, or how?

A. No, sir, it is in a card file.
Q. When that certificate is filed there, how is that kept? 
A. It is clipped on to her personnel record.
Q. Do you recall the exact date you looked at Mrs. 

Rolfe’s record?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ask anybody in the office whether she had 

filed an Elementary certificate?
A. I had discussed it with my supervisor.
Q. Well then, you did feel it was important to inquire 

whether she had an Elementary certificate?
A. I wanted to know what the lady was certified for.
Q. Will you explain to the Court why you didn’t call 

Mrs. Rolfe in and discuss it with her and ask her about 
it?

A. No, sir, we don’t do that.
Q. You just didn’t feel that Mrs. Rolfe would be

51 likely to know whether she was certified for Ele­
mentary?



Mr. Stevens: Objected to as argumentative.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. Mr. Norman, do you recall reciving a letter by cer­

tified mail from Mr. Z. Alexander Looby?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the 13th day of September, 1965?
A. I don’t remember the date.
Q. I would like to hand you—first, let me ask you this: 

You were—state whether or not it isn’t true, Mr. Norman, 
that you were the only—that the only interest you had in 
retaining Mrs. Rolfe was if she could be retained as a 
teacher in a Negro school?

A. No, sir.
Q. Well, let me-—I would like to hand you a copy of a 

letter addressed to you from Mr. Looby with carbon copy 
to all the Board Members, and ask you to state whether 
or not you received the original copy of that letter, dated 
13 September 1965?

A. Yes, we received such a letter.
Q. Did you make any effort at that time to determine 

whether Mrs. Rolfe was certified as an Elementary 
teacher ?

A. The letter was presented to the Board of 
52 Education for their consideration.

Q. Will you introduce that copy as—well, before I 
get to that—I hand you another letter dated 15th of 
September, 1965, and ask you if that is a reply that you 
wrote to Mr. Looby?

A. Yes, sir, it is. It has my signature.
Q. And another one dated 7 October 1965, and ask if 

that isn’t a reply that Mr. Looby wrote to you?
A. Yes, sir, it is.
Q. And another one dated October 18, 1965, and ask 

you if that isn’t the reply that you wrote to him?

—  184a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



A. That is correct.
Q. Will yon introduce those as Collective Exhibit to 

your testimony?
Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, I would like to see 

them.
The Court: Show them to Mr. Stevens.
(Documents handed to Mr. Stevens.)
Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, I object to them on the 

grounds that they are immaterial to the issue being 
heard by the Court.

The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Williams: If the Court please, we would re- 

53 spectfully submit that they are material and that 
counsel—the issue here which the defendant is 

trying to carry the burden of proof is for some reason 
for mitigation of plaintiffs for lost damages, damages to 
both plaintiffs, and they have introduced proof by which 
they hope to show that the plaintiff Rolfe—that they did 
not know about plaintiff Rolfe’s Elementary Teaching 
Certificate, and that if they had known about it, that they 
would have offered her these teaching positions that they 
had.

The Court: Do these letter indicate------
Mr. Williams— These letters indicate or tend to show 

the only interest the defendants had was in discharging 
the plaintiff.

The Court: It doesn’t show she had an Elementary 
Certificate ?

Mr. Williams: I am not sure of that.
Mr. Stevens: No, your Honor, and that is the reason 

I objected.
The Court: All right, in that event the objection will 

be sustained.
Mr. Williams: While they don’t show she had an 

Elementary Certificate, if the Court please, they show

—  185a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



that the defendants discharged the plaintiffs in
54 reliance on their claimed right to discharge her 

because of an abolition of a position, and they were
not considering the question of whether or not she had 
an Elementary Certificate.

The Court: I ruled twice on it, and am sustaining the 
objection for the third time. They may be marked for 
identification only.

Mr. Williams: I would like to have them marked for 
identification.

The Court: Let them be so marked as the next number. 
(Thereupon the letters above referred to were marked 

Exhibit No. 29 for Identification Only.)
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Mr. Norman, I would like to 

have------
Mr. Williams: I would like to have handed to Mr. 

Norman copy of Collective Exhibit No. 11, please. 
(Exhibit handed to the witness.)
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Mr. Norman, you recall that 

document, do you not!
A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is a letter of discharge written by you
55 to Mrs. Peebles and signed by you as Chairman of 

the Board of Education!
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in that letter I believe you stated that you 

would notify Mrs. Peebles if a vacancy occurred, did you 
not! You were treating her as a tenure teacher rather 
than a non-tenure teacher, were you not!

A. Shall I quote from the letter!
Q. The letter is a matter of record.
I will ask you whether or not you understand the letter 

as conveying the information that she has a preferred 
position and is, therefore, a tenure teacher rather than a 
non-tenure teacher!

A. No, we didn’t consider her as a tenure teacher be­
cause she wasn’t.

—  186a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. May I see that letter again, please, sir?
(Document handed to Mr. Williams.)
Well, I will briefly read the second paragraph to you 

or the entire letter:
“ Because of the decrease in attendance at West End 

School the Lincoln County Board of Education regrets 
that it has become necessary to declare your position 
abolished as of 3:00 P. M., September 8, 1965.

“ Under the Tennessee Code 49-2410, tenure teach-
56 ers who are dismissed because of abolition of posi­

tions shall be placed upon a preferred list for
reemployment. We shall be glad to contact you when a 
vacancy arises in line with your certification and quali­
fications.”

That is the body of the letter.
A. But it does not say she is a tenure teacher.
Q. All right, will you explain to the Court why you 

put in the part about tenure teachers?
A. Well, I was quoting from the rules.
Q. Yes, sir, but why did you put in the part about 

tenure teachers with regard to Mrs. Peebles who was not 
a tenure teacher?

A. We felt that it was relevant that she should know
that.

Q. Mr. Norman, may I suggest to you that you hadn’t 
even investigated to determine whether either of these 
teachers were tenure teachers at the time. You just sent 
a form letter. Isn’t that true?

A. No, sir.
Q. All right, you did intend for her to understand that 

you would contact her when a vacancy arises in line with 
her qualifications and certification. You did intend for 
her to understand that?

A. That’s correct.
57 Q. Although you didn’t intend for her to under­

stand she was a tenure teacher?

—  187a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



A. I intended for her to understand that we would con­
tact her and try to use her when a vacancy occurred.

Q. Now, Mr. Norman, did you ever write her a letter 
at all advising her of any vacancy existing your system?

A. No, sir.
Q. This visiting teacher that you are talking about 

acts as kind of a glorified Truant Officer, isn’t that cor­
rect?

A. It is a new position. I would dispute that it is a 
glorified attendance teacher; no, sir.

Q. Well now, isn’t that—we are referring to the posi­
tion you had in February?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were these some of the positions that were made 

possible by virtue of some additional federal funds under 
Title I to the Aid to Elementary and Secondary Schools 
Act?

A. That’s correct.
Q. And you mentioned problems. You mentioned the 

duties of this teacher was to visit or consult with class­
room teachers concerning problems of students and re­

visit the child’s parents regarding the problems, 
58 and then report back to the teacher. What kind 

of problems?
A. Usually family and social problems.
Q. Usually disciplinary problems, school dropouts and 

that sort of thing?
A. Not a school dropout, no, sir.
Q. You mean this teacher was kind of a social worker 

or something?
A. More of that nature than an attendance teacher.
Q. Mrs. Peebles didn’t have any training in Social 

work, did she?
A. No, sir.
Q. Will you explain to the Court why you were willing 

to hire Mrs. Peebles with federal funds on a job that re­

—  188a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



quired a teacher with a social work background, but you 
weren’t willing to assign either her or Mrs. Rolfe to a 
position in an elementary school!

A. We could not find a teacher with any social back­
ground training for this work, and the lady that we did 
hire was a lady with a B. S. Degree who had not had any 
training in social work.

Q. Yes, sir, but where it comes to a matter of real 
concern on your part, you can and do ignore the certifica­
tion of a teacher, don’t you!

A. In this particular case, Mr. Williams, the regu-
59 lations------

Q. Sir, you may explain, but please answer the 
question first, and then explain later. I would respect­
fully request whether you do or do not sometimes ignore 
the certification of a teacher and appoint her to a position 
for which she is not certified!

A. It depends upon the regulation of the program for 
which we are hiring.

Q. But you do do that on occasion, do you not!
A. It was done on this occasion; yes, sir.
Q. Has it been done on other occasions, Mr. Norman? 
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Norman, did you ever at any time contact Mrs. 

Peebles personally!
A. No, sir.
Q. After your discharge?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever at any time contact Mrs. Rolfe per­

sonally after your discharge of her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you still have that personnel record of yours, that 

is Exhibit 16?
60 Mr. Norman, your counsel has said in his brief, or 

somewhere, in his findings of fact that he hopes
this Court can find, that you didn’t know where Mrs.

— 189a —
Testimony of Everett Norman



Rolfe was. State whether or not it is true that that per­
sonnel record shows her Nashville address?

Mr. Stevens: That is not in the proposed finding of 
fact. I  object to that.

The Court: Well, it speaks for itself, Mr. Williams. 
Aren’t we spinning our wheels here a little bit?

Q. (By Mr. Williams) You knew where Mrs. Rolfe 
was—your personnel records in your office showed where 
her address was, did it not, 913 Villa Place, Nashville, 
Tennessee?

A. Yes, sir, that is on my card.
Q. You had a similar record of Mrs. Peebles, with Mrs. 

Peebles address on it, did you not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. So then, it is not true, as is alleged somewhere in 

writing in this proceeding by your counsel, that you did 
not know where the plaintiffs were, is it; you had a for­
warding address ?

Mr. Stevens: May it please the Court, that is not a 
true statement.

The Court: Well now, it is an unnecessary state- 
61 ment in any event. Just ask this witness ques­

tions, Mr. Williams. Don’t bring in a lot of other 
collateral matters.

Q. (By Mr. Williams) It is true, is it not, that you had 
a forwarding address for each of these ladies?

A. It is on their record, yes.
Q. If you had wanted to write them, you could have 

done so?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you had wanted to advise Mrs. Rolfe and Mrs. 

Peebles of the vacancies which occurred, after you had 
discharged them, you could have done so in writing, 
couldn’t you.

A. Yes, sir, I could have.
Q. And did you ever at any time—I believe you have

—  190a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



already testified you never did so at any time. That is 
correct, isn’t it?

A. That’s right.
Q. What was the discussion about that you had with 

Mrs. Eolfe, I think you said about the day of her dis­
charge, or shortly thereafter?

A. What was the nature of the discussion?
Q. Yes, what did you talk with her about?
A. We talked about reemploying, and the best I re­

member, that she gave me a story of how badly she 
needed a job.

62 Q. So you were impressed at that time that Mrs. 
Eolfe was in poor financial standing?

A. Well, she------  : j
Mr. Stevens: Objected to as immaterial.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court----- -
The Court: Mr. Williams, the only thing, we have the 

amount that she would have—that both of these teachers 
would have been paid under their contracts. We have 
got the amount, I believe, that they were actually paid, 
for the three weeks that they worked.

Mr. Stevens has not produced anything that impresses 
the Court in mitigation. Why the attitude toward this 
witness ?

Mr. Williams: I don’t have any attitude toward him, 
if your Honor please.

The Court: It seems to me that you are giving him a 
rather hard cross-examination. The witness has not done 
anything that the Court sees to justify that.

Mr. Williams: Very well, your Honor.
The Court: Any redirect?
Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor.

—  191a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



63 Redirect Examination,

By Mr. Stevens:
Q. Mr. Norman, Mr. Williams asked you about the em­

ployment of Alma Graham in an elementary school on 
September 7, 1965. I will ask yon whether or not if you 
had known of Mrs. Rolfe’s having an elementary certifi­
cate, and she had gotten that job at that time, would she 
have had any loss of pay whatever!

Mr. Williams: If the Court please, that is objected to 
as calling for a conclusion.

The Court: Well, it is argumentative.
Objection sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) What did that position pay!
A. I don’t remember the exact figures, Mtr, Stevens.
Q. Is that based upon the teachers, on their experience! 

What would Mrs. Rolfe have made per month in that job!
A. She would have made the same she did make as a 

High School teacher.
Q. Mr. Williams also asked you whether or not you 

personally contacted Mrs. Peebles and Mrs. Rolfe, or Mrs. 
Peebles anyway. How many students were there at Lin­
coln County, approximately, that you have jurisdiction 
over!

A. Approximately 5,000.
64 Q. And how many teachers, approximately!

A. 185.
Q. Is it customary for you to personally contact teachers 

relative to opening of vacancies!
A. No, sir, the teachers usually contact the office.
Q. If you have a message to be delivered to a prospec­

tive teacher, do you do it personally or does somebody in 
your office contact them for you!

A. Someone in the office.
Mr. Williams: We object to what is customary, if your

—  192a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Honor please. It is what happened in this case that we 
are concerned with.

The Court: Objection overruled. Custom can be shown. 
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, your Honor.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness for the defendants.
Mr. Stevens: Call Miss M'arian McAfee.

65 Thereupon—

MISS MARIAN McAFEE
was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, and 
having previously been duly sworn, was examined and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Would you state your name, occupation and place of 
residence, please, ma’am?

A. Marian McAfee, Feyetteville, Tennessee; Supervisor 
of Instruction, Lincoln County Schools.

Q. I will ask you whether or not you know Mrs. Bernice 
Peebles?

A. I do.
Q. I will ask you whether or not in the year 1965-66 

you sometime after her dismissal as a teacher at West 
End High School you had a conversation with her?

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it personal or over the telephone?
A. Telephone.
Q. Were you under any type of instructions?
A. My superintendent had instructed me to call Mrs. 

Peebles.

—  193a —

Testimony of Marian McAfee



194a —

Q. Q. When you called Mts. Peebles, what was said?
66 Mr. Williams: I object to any telephone conversa­

tion, your Honor.
The Court: Mrs. Peebles testified to it.
Objection overruled.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) What did you tell her and she tell 

you?
A. In substance, I told Mrs. Peebles that Mr. Norman 

had asked me to tell her that we had a position available 
that we thought she would possibly be interested in, and 
if she were, she was instructed to call him as early as she 
could decide she would be interested in said position.

Q. What did she tell you?
A. She asked me what kind of position. It was a new 

position and I wasn’t able to give her very much definite 
instructions on it. She did not say she was interested. 
That’s about all she did say. I urged her to call Mr. 
Norman as he asked me to do.

Q. What did you tell her about the job?
A. I told her that it was a new job under Title 1 of our 

Education Act, and that it would involve visiting between 
the school and the home to develop a better understanding 
between our school program and the parents of these 
children who are culturally deprived, who might have 

problems in our school program.
67 Q. Did you tell her what the salary would be?

Mr. William: Object to leading, if your Honor
please.

The Court: Overruled.
A. I did not as I recall, Mr. Stevens.
Q. What did she tell you she was going to do?
Mr. William: Objected to, your Honor.
The Court: Objection overruled, Mr. Williams.
A. She did not say what she would do, but I urged her 

two or three times. I said, “ Now, Mrs. Peebles, if you 
are interested, please contact the superintendent’s office.”



Q. Did she indicate whether or not she was interested! 
A. She did not.
Q. What, in fact, was the nature of the position!
M!r. Williams: Objected to. The superintendent has al­

ready testified about that, if your Honor please.
The Court: Objection sustained.
The Court understands what the position was, Mr. 

Stevens.
It occurs to the Court that Miss McAfee is testifying 

exactly like Mrs. Peebles did about the conversation.
68 There doesn’t seem to be any dispute on it. I will 

be glad to hear it.
Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, her evidence would 

corroborate Mr. Norman as to what the position paid, but 
if there is no dispute about it.

The Court: All right, go ahead.
The Court understands what the position is and the 

Court is the trier of the facts.
Mr. Stevens: Do I understand there is no dispute!
The Court: Well, I don’t know. It is sort of hard to 

say that Mr. Williams doesn’t dispute, but the Court 
understands what the position called for, the kind of work 
that was involved.

Go right ahead, Mr. Stevens.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) What would this position have 

paid and what did it pay; what would it have paid to 
Mrs. Peebles?

A. It would have paid her salary she would have re­
ceived in the classroom. That is the way we set those 
positions up.

Q. And when was it you called her?
A. It was sometime after February 5th and before 

February 15th, I think. I know it was after Feb­
ruary 5th.

69 Q. Mrs. Peebles was still living in Fayetteville?
A. I was able to find her in Fayetteville.

—  195a —

Testimony of Marian McAfee



Q, You did find her in Fayetteville!
A. At a number that was given to me to call. It wasn’t 

her residence, however.
Q. If she testified she left Fayetteville------
Mr. Williams: Objected to, your Honor, as being in­

competent.
The Court: It is argumentative. Objection sustained.
Mr. Stevens: I am just trying to establish the date, 

your Honor.
The Court: Well, you said, if she testified. This gets 

to be a matter of argument.
Mr. Stevens: All right. I wasn’t arguing.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) I will ask you whether or not you 

are familiar with an opening that occurred at Petersburg 
in the Elementary School there!

A. Yes, sir.
Q. When was that position filled; when was that?
Mr. Williams: I object to that as being repetitious. 

There is no question about the opening in Petersburg, as 
shown in Exhibit, and that a teacher was employed 

70 there.
The Court: Objection sustained.

Mr. Stevens: Does it show the exact date?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, in the exhibit.
The Court: In the exhibit it does.
Mr. Stevens: May I have the exhibits, all the exhibits, 

unless you want to show me the exhibit you are talking 
about.

Mr. Williams: It is Exhibit 5, Collective Exhibit 5 in 
the original record.

Mr. Stevens: May I borrow your copy?
(Thereupon the exhibit was handed to Mr. Stevens.)
Mr. Williams: It is the ninth page of that record.
Mr. Stevens: Yes, your Honor, it shows the date as 

November 1, 1965.

—  196a —

Testimony of Marian McAfee



The Court: The Court so recalled.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Miss McAfee, it is quite possible, isn’t it, that when 
you used the word “ possibility” , that Mrs. Peebles may 

have understood you to mean there was a possible
71 position going to open at the time. That is quite 

possible, isn’t it!
A. It could be possible that I was misunderstood.
Q. As a matter of fact, at the time you called her, had 

the position actually been established!
A. Yes, it had.
Q. It had been established?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The position was not actually a classroom teaching 

position, was it?
A. No, it was not.
Q. As a matter of fact, what it was, the visiting teacher 

would actually be under the supervision of the classroom 
teacher, would she not, and she would be carrying on the 
social services for the problem children in the classroom?

A. She would have been under the supervision of our 
office and the classroom teacher.

Q. I believe the superintendent testified this morning 
that she would have to report to the classroom teacher. 
That is correct, is it not?

A. Yes.
The Court: I thought you didn’t want to go into this. 
Mr. Williams. I don’t That is as far as I am going. 

That’s all.
72 The Court: Any redirect?

—  197a —

Testimony of Marian McAfee



T e s tim o n y  o f  M a ria n  M c A fe e

Redirect Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Miss McAfee, to clear this up, under whose super­
vision would or did the visiting teacher work?

A. Well, honestly, under my supervision, generally 
speaking.

Q. Who do you work for?
A. Mr. Norman, Board of Education.
Q. Would the visiting teacher make reports to any par­

ticular teacher?
A. On occasions they would where a child was involved. 
Q. Would the classroom teacher have any supervision 

or superior position whatever?
A. Oh, no.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further?

Recross-Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. There was no actual teaching involved in this, was 
there; it was more or less a social workers job, was it not?

A. No instruction. No instruction as such.
73 Mr. Williams: That’s all. Thank you.

Redirect Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Would the time spent in this position have gone to 
add to her tenure, qualify her as a tenure teacher, or do 
you know that?

A. I do not know that, sir.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further?
Mr. Williams: No, your Honor.
The Court: The witness is excused.
Call your next witness.

—  198a —



Thereupon-

— 199a —
T es tim o n y  o f  L o u is e  M a d d ox

MISS LOUISE MADDOX,
was called as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, and 
after having been first duly sworn, was examined and 
testified as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Miss Maddox, would you state your name, occupa­
tion, and place of residence, please ma’am!

A. Louise Maddox, Accountant and Personnel Clerk 
with Lincoln County Board of Education, Fayetteville, 
Tennessee.

Q. You live in Fayetteville, Tennessee!
74 A. 412 Green Street, Fayetteville.

Q. Miss Maddox, who keeps the personnel records 
and certificates of teachers, high school teachers in your 
system !

A. I do.
Q. I will ask you whether or not Mrs. Rolfe, Mrs. El­

vira Rolfe, ever gave you a certificate!
Mr. Williams: Objected to as leading, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) I will ask you what certificate to 

teach Mrs. Elvira Rolfe had!
A. High School Certificate. She was teaching in the 

High School area and she had a High School Certificate.
Q. Is that the only certificate she had so far as you 

know!
A. So far as I know, that is the only one she had.
Q. Mrs. Rolfe has testified she gave you a certificate to 

teach in elementary school. Is that true or false!
A. That is false. She was not teaching in elementary 

schools and didn’t have an elementary application in, so 
we had no need for an elementary certificate.



75 The Court: Do I understand your answer is that 
Mrs. Rolfe at no time gave you her elementary 

school certificate!
The Witness: That’s right.
The Court: All right.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Did Mrs. Rolfe ever file an ap­

plication or make application for elementary school job 
in your office!

A. No, sir.
Q. Do you remember how Mrs. Rolfe received her pay 

check following her dismissal; did you mail it or give it 
to her personally!

A. She left her address with me and her last check 
was mailed to her.

Q. Do you recall how she received her certificate to 
teach and her other papers!

A. You mean after that!
Q. Beg your pardon!
A. After that!
Q. When she wanted them back after she was dis­

missed!
A. She came—it seems to me she came in and picked 

up her certificate.
Q. Do you have any record of having mailed those 

76 certificates, or that certificate to her!
A. No, sir.

Q. Were there any other papers you had of her’s that 
you gave her at the time!

A. No, the certificate was the only thing she asked for.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Miss Maddox, you were sworn this morning!
A. Yes.
Q. All right, Mrs. Maddox, do you have any personal

—  200a —

Testimony of Louise Maddox



recollection of the delivery of Mrs. Eolfe’s certificate to 
her?

A. So many people come in, but it seems to me------
Q. I am asking you, please ma’am, and you can ex­

plain later, yes or no, do you or do you not now have 
any personal recollection of the delivery of Mrs. Rolfe’s 
certificate ?

A. Yes.
Q. Ma’am?
A. Yes.

Q. You do?
77 A. Yes.

Q. You remember that clearly in your mind right
now?

A. Yes.
Q. On what day was it?
A. I don’t know what day _it was.
Q. What transpired on that occasion?
A. She came into the oflice and sat down in the chair 

on the other side of the desk from me and asked for her 
certificate, and I got it for her and gave it to her, and 
had a little conversation with her.

Q. What was the conversation?
A. About where she was living now, and what she was 

doing.
Q. And what month was that?
A. I couldn’t say what month it was.
Q. Was it the month of October?
A. I don’t know.
Q. September?
A. I don’t know what month it was.
The Court: She says she doesn’t know what month it 

was.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Mrs. Maddox, I suppose you also 

have a positive recollection that she never had an
78 elementary certificate in her file also?

A. I never saw an elementary certificate.

—  201a —

Testimony of Louise Maddox



Q. Do you have a positive recollection that she did not 
ever have an elementary certificate?

A. To my knowledge, she did not.
Q. Are the only person who has access to the records 

there in the office?
A. No.
Q. Who is the other one?
A. They are public records .and anyone who wants to 

look at them, they are in a file.
Q. Don’t you have an assistant who likewise works 

in the office?
A. Yes.
Q. What is her name?
A. Mrs. Owen.
Q. Is she here today?
A. No.
Q. Have you asked her whether or not Mrs. Rolfe ever 

brought a certificate in there and gave it to her?
A. Yes.
Q. You have asked her?
A. I asked her and she said she never----- -

Q. I didn’t ask what her answer was.
79 Mr. Stevens: You opened it up.

Mr. Williams: No, I didn’t.
The Court: He asked a question. That is all he asked.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) How are the personnel records 

kept of individual teachers?
A. Which type of records? We have several. What 

type of records on each individual?
Q. Oh, you do?
A. Yes.
Q. What type do you have and where are they kept, 

ma’am?
A. We have personnel cards that you have a copy of 

where they write out their qualifications on the card.
Q. Miss Maddox, do you know that I have a copy of 

the personnel card?

Testimony of Louise Maddox



The Court: That is not important.
Mr. Williams: I think it reflects on her credibility, your 

Honor. I do not have a copy.
The Court: The Court doesn’t think so. She probably 

is the one that had to get it up.
Mr. Williams: I don’t have a copy of it, if your Honor 

please. She can’t know that I have a copy.
80 The Court: It has been exhibited in this record. 

Let’s don’t take the time with such picayunish
things.

Q. The Witness: It is available.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Will you go on------
A. We have a card about this size that each teacher 

fills out when she comes in, when she is elected. She 
writes on that all of her qualifications, her name; her 
birth date; the colleges she has attended; the type of 
certificate and its number; and what years of experience 
she has had, and where.

Q. And it is based on that, on your examination of 
that, you conclude Mrs. Rolfe was certified only for high 
school ?

A. Right.
Q. Now, when a teacher brings her personnel teaching 

certificate in, where is that kept?
A. It is kept in a little file that it fits into. They are 

k„ept alphabetically.
Q. Is that a little filing case or something?
A. No, it is just a little wooden file, and the little cer­

tificates are about this long, and this wide (indicating), 
and it is a little wooden file where they filed alpha­

betically.
81 Q. That is separate from the file where the per­

sonnel records are kept?
A. Yes, the personnel card is much bigger and it is in 

a separate file.
Q. How many teachers’ personnel records do you have 

to deal with?

—  203a —

Testimony of Louise Maddox



A. We have 188 teachers.
Q.. And is it customary when a teacher leaves or re­

signs, or is discharged, that you return her teaching 
certificate to her?

A. She has a copy of her own. If she asks for her copy, 
she may have it. And if she asks for the superintendent’s 
copy, she may have it.

Q. And you positively deny, Miss Maddox, that anyone 
in your office ever mailed Mrs. Eolfe’s teaching certificate 
to her?

A. Yes.
Q. You deny that?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is based on the fact you recall having 

handed it to her personally?
A. Yes.
Q. But you can’t say what month that was?

A. I have no idea what month it was.
82 Q. Can you say how long after her discharge, ap­

proximately?
A. No.
Q. Can you even say whether it was a matter of months 

or weeks, or days, after her discharge?
A. It was before Christmas, sometime in the fall af­

ter—
Q. Sometime in the fall before Christmas?
A. Yes. I would say that. I wouldn’t be positive that 

it was.
Q. You did know, did you not, that Mrs. Bolfe did 

not live in Fayetteville?
A. Yes, she left me an address to mail her last check.
Q. That was—was it at that time she picked up her 

personnel card?
A. No, she came back after that.
Q. At the time she was discharged, she left an address

—  204a —

Testimony of Louise Maddox



for you to mail her check to, but she came all the way 
back from Nashville to pick up her permit or certificate?

A. I don’t know whether that is what she came back 
for or not, but she was in Fayetteville and came in and 
picked up her certificate.

Mr. Williams: That’s all.
83 The Court: Any redirect?

Mr. Stevens: No redirect.
By the Court: Q. All right now, let me understand, Mrs. 

Maddox, Mr. Williams asked you if you were basing 
your statement that Mrs. Bolfe never did, to your recol­
lection, leave an elementary certificate with you on the 
personnel card. Is that what you said?

A. No, not exactly. On the personnel card, when they 
were elected to a position, they fill this personnel card 
out.

Q. I understand all that.
A. And they write on there their type of certificate and 

number, and leave a copy of that certificate with us.
Q. Now, Mrs. Rolfe has testified previously in this case 

that she, as I recall, went to your office and spoke either 
in the office, or outside the office, with superintendent 
Norman, and told him that she had this elementary cer­
tificate; that this was in the Spring of the year before 
she was dismissed; and that Mr. Norman told her to 
leave it with you. And she testified she did leave it with 
you. My question to you is this: Did I understand you 

correctly to say that you were basing your state-
84 ment that she did not leave it with you, on what 

you saw on the card?
A. No, I didn’t base it on that.
Q. What did you base it on?
A. I based it on the fact that I don’t—that she didn’t 

give me the certificate.
Q. In other words, you are just positive that she never

—  205a —

Testimony of Louise Maddox



did leave any elementary teaching certificate with you. 
Is that what you are testifying?

A. That is what I am saying.
The Court: All right.
I just wanted to understand your testimony.
The witness is excused.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, may I ask her 

a question?
The Court: Yes, sir.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Mrs. Maddox, will you explain, 

if you will, why you started to say, “ that is based on
the fact that I don’t------did you start to say, I don’t
remember ?

A. No, I started to say it wasn’t on her personnel 
record, and she didn’t leave the certificate with 

85 me.
Q. But what I am saying, Mrs. Maddox, you under­

stand we are dealing here with very precious rights, and 
I understand, and we all know that you cannot remember 
everything all the time.

Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, I object on the 
ground he is arguing with the witness.

The Court: Objection sustained. He is not arguing 
with the witness, but what he is saying is what I suppose 
is eventually going to be a question is argumentative. 
Just ask a question, Mr. Williams.

Q. (By Mr. Williams) I am asking you, isn’t it true 
that you just don’t remember whether or not she left 
that there?

A. If she left it, I would have remembered it. I would 
have made a record of it.

Q. Now, that is—isn’t it true that that is what you 
are basing your testimony on, you don’t actually re­
member positively that she did not, but what you are 
testifying is that you believe if she had left it, you would 
have made a record of it?

—  206a —

Testimony of Louise Maddox



A. No, you are turning me around. I remember that 
she didn’t.

Q. Why did you say “ if she had left it,”  you 
86 would have made a record of it. Why did you say 

that?
A. Because------
Mr. Stevens: Objected to.
A. (Continued) Because I would have made a record 

of it, and I would have asked her to put it on her per­
sonnel record.

Q. Well, isn’t it true, that is what you are basing your 
testimony here on?

A. No, sir, it isn’t true.
Q. How then do you reach the conclusion that you 

are positive that she didn’t?
A. Because I know she didn’t.
Q. Against her testimony, her sworn testimony, how 

do you reach the conclusion you are positive that she is 
a liar?

Mr. Stevens: Objected to as improper cross-examination.
The Court: Objection overruled.
A. Because the certificate was never there. There was 

never a certificate in our office.
Q. How many times did you go and look to see whether 

or not Mrs. Bolfe had a permanent elementary certificate?
A. I never did look until it turned up here in court. 

87 Mr. Williams: Right. That’s all.
The Court: Anything further?

Mr. Stevens: No further questions.
The Court: The witness is excused. Call your next 

witness.
Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, we have a deposition. Do 

you want us to read it or treat it as read?
The Court: Is that Nathaniel Almon and Ezekial Bell?
Mr. Stevens: Yes.

—  207a —

Testimony of Louise Maddox



The Court: It will be inserted in the record at this point 
as testimony, but there is no point reading it to the Court.

Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, with regard to 
that deposition, I objected throughout the deposition at 
various points, and I want to rely on each and every one 
of those objections I made in the course of the deposition.

The Court: All right, the Court will take that into con­
sideration in reviewing the deposition.

Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, the deposition I refer to was 
the deposition of Nathaniel Almon.

The Court: And Ezekial Bell?
88 Mr. Stevens: No, that is Mr. Williams’ deposition. 

The Court: I see. All right.
(Thereupon the deposition of Nathaniel Almon, offered 

by the defendants, is copied in the record, and is as fol­
lows:)

Deposition of
NATHANIEL ALMON,

Being first duly sworn, deposed as follows:

“ Direct Examination,
By Mr. Bagley:

“ Q. Would you state your name and your age and your 
home address?

“ A. Nathaniel—that’s N-a-t-h-a-n-i-e-1 Almon, that’s 
A-l-m-o-n. I live at 1417 Gflendwood Drive, SE, Hunts­
ville, Alabama; age 67.

“ Q. Mr. Almon, what’s your occupation?
“ A. County Superintendent of Education of Madison 

County, Alabama.
“ Q. How long have you occupied this position?
“ A. It will be 12 years the first of this coming Novem­

ber, November of ’66.

—  208a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



“ Q. Mr. Lamon, what are some of your duties as Su­
perintendent of the Madison County Schools?

“ A. Well, under the laws of Alabama, I ’m the ad­
ministrative officer, or the Secretary of the Board

89 of Education, and there’s a whole hook on my du­
ties; one is to recommend to the Board employees

that we employ teachers, bus drivers, and so forth, one 
of my duties is to recommend persons that will be em­
ployed by the Board, if they so desire.

“ Q. Now, was this true for the school year 1965-66? 
“ A. Yes, it was.
“ Q. During the school year 1965-66, were any new 

school teachers employed for the Madison County Schools? 
“ Mr. Williams: Objected to as being irrelevant.”
(The Court: Objection sustained.)
“ A. We employed a few during the year.
“ Q. Now did your School System, the Madison County 

School System, employ any math teachers for Junior or 
Senior High Schools during this time?

“ A. Employed one.
“ Mr. Williams: Objected to as being irrelevant.”
(The Court: Objection sustained.)
“ Q. You employed one?
“ A. One.
“ Q. For what school was this?
“ A. West Madison Junior High School.
“ Q. Where is that located?

“ A. About 10 miles southwest of Huntsville.
90 “ Q. That’s in Madison County?

“ A. Madison County; right.
“ Q. And that is a Junior High School?
“ A. Junior High School.
“ Q. What grades would that be?
“ A. One through nine, but we do have the tenth grade 

down there—one through ten.

—  209a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



“ Q. A Junior High?
“ A . One through nine constitutes a Junior High School 

—let’s come back—we call a Junior High School 7-8-9, 
but this particular school goes from one, we ’ll say, through 
nine—let’s leave off the ten there. I ’d like to verify that 
record, we have had ten grades there and we considered 
moving—may I just check? I just don’t want to say 
there’s nine when there’s ten because we’ve done some 
work—I just want to make sure that that is true.

“ (Witness leaves the room and returns.)
“ Our records show that grades one through ten, which 

I was sure, but I didn’t want to give anything that’s 
wrong.

“ Q. Then the West Madison School has grades one 
through ten?

“ A. Right.
“ Q. The math teacher that you employed at this 

91 school, what time of the year was this teacher em­
ployed ?

“ A. Approximately March 1.
“ Mr. Williams: This is objected to as being irrelevant.”
(The Court: Objection sustained.)
“ Q. At the time that this math teacher was employed, 

did you have on file any applications from any math 
teacher ?

“ A. Not to my knowledge; I mean colored teachers, 
right; not a colored teacher.

“ Q. How was a teacher found for this position?
“ A. My supervisor sought a teacher and looked for one 

and found one in a nearby city.
“ Mr. Williams: This is objected to as being irrele­

vant.”
(The Court: Objection sustained.)
“ Q. Mr. Almon, assuming your School System had had 

on file in February of this year, an application for em­

—  210a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



ployment from a Negro teacher in her late 20’s, living in 
Huntsville, Alabama, at the time, who held a B. S. Degree 
from A & I University in Nashville, Tennessee; was cer­
tified by the State of Tennessee as a teacher of math for 
grades 7 through 12, had had two years’ teaching expe­
rience in a Negro High School in Fayetteville, Tennessee, 
and assuming that she was of good moral character 

and had the other requisites and qualifications
92 for a Junior or Senior High teacher, would she have 

been employed in your System as a math teacher in
West Madison School to fill the vacancy that you referred 
to?

“ Mr. Williams: Objected to as being incompetent and 
irrelevant.”

(The Court: Objection overruled.)
“ A. The chances are very good that we would employ 

such a person, however, we have a policy of interviewing 
teachers personally before we employ them.

“ Q. Mr. Almon, what does a Degree teacher with 2 
years’ experience earn in your System?

“ Mr. Williams: Objected to as being incompetent and 
irrelevant. ’ ’

(The Court: Objection overruled.)
“ A. As of last year’s schedule, 2 years’ experience for 

the full year would have been $4970.00, that’s a Degree 
teacher with 2 years’ experience.

“ Q. What would a teacher such as I have mentioned 
in the previous question or a couple of questions back, 
have earned from the time of employment in March until 
the end of the school year?”

“ Mr. Williams: Objected to as being incompetent and 
irrelevant.”

(The Court: Objection overruled.)
93 “ A. This payroll sheet shows that the person em­

ployed at the time I mentioned was paid for 19

—  211a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



days, 20 days, 20 days, and 4 days, I  believe that makes a 
total of 63 days. On our sheet, payroll schedule I should 
say, $4970.00 per year divided by 20, would give $27.61 
per day, so if you will take time out a minute, please------

“ Q. Just go ahead and take time.
“ A. $27.61, multiply that by 63 days would be sup­

posedly the salary that we might be talking about.
“ Mr. Williams: Of course now, we object to that.”
(The Court: Objection sustained.)
“ A. I came up with $1749.43; I ’ll multiply that on the 

machine if you will excuse me just a minute.
“ (Witness leaves room and returns.)
“ 1739.43.

‘ ‘ Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

“ Q. Let’s get this math correct, you are figuring that 
on the basis of $497.00' a month and 20 work days per 
month?

“ A. Yes.
“ Q. Wouldn’t that come out $24.00-and-something in­

stead of $27.00-and-something a day?
“ A. That is what we have on this sheet per d a y -  

94 20 into that.
“ Q. 20 into that comes out $24.85.

“ A. Well, if the Paymaster has got me into trouble, it ’s 
embarrassing but—let’s see—no, we can divide that by 180 
days; see, you divide by 12 and then by 20, as the payroll 
sheet shows—I ’ll be glad to furnish you one of them, if 
you’d like.

“ Q. Now, Mr. Almon, do they have the usual System 
that some School Systems have down here that frequently 
Principals recommend and find teachers for their particu­
lar school?

“ A. Did you say firing? Or hiring?

—  212a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



“ Q. No, sir; that frequently Principals find and recom­
mend teachers for a particular school?

“ A. I could definitely say this, let me make this defi­
nitely clear, the law does require a Superintendent to come 
up with people to teach school and to get a contract and 
the Superintendent recommends them, then my policy to 
find that person is to cooperate with the Principal and 
Supervisors to recommend they, whom they would like to 
have, I  believe that would be ‘ yes’ to your question.

“ Q. And that’s generally known in your community, 
isn’t it?

“ A. Yes.
95 “ Q. That if a teacher wants to find a job, the first

one she ordinarily contracts, if she knows the School 
Principal, she will go to him first, and he, 9 times out of 
10, will contact your office and obtain an application blank 
for her? Is that correct, sir?

“ A. May we call off the record just a minute, and then 
I ’ll answer your question.

“ Q. No, sir, I ’d rather have it on the record.
“ A. All right; people, we normally expect people to 

apply to this office for employment and then we consult 
with the Supervisors and Principals and they may inter­
view these people but sometimes people go directly to the 
Principal and then they will bring them in, they do it both 
ways, it ’s a pretty free-wheeling proposition but ethically 
speaking, the proper—probably here would be the center 
point of application.

“ Q. This math teacher that you employed March 1, how 
long had that vacancy existed and for what period of time?

“ A. I don’t know the exact date—-well, to my knowl­
edge there was no lapse of time because we moved that 
person into another position where we added people, addi­
tional people, and this person remained on that job until 
one was found before they went to the other, so I don’t

—  213a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



think there was any lapse, there was—it was a planned 
change there.

96 “ Q. The change involved perhaps a change of cur­
riculum or a change in staff?

“ A. To be frank, we added quite a number of people 
on our new Federal Program at this time, and so this 
person who created that vacancy was transferred from 
that to our employment on another Program.

“ Q. What method do you use to advertise for teachers? 
“ A. You mean to advertise for teachers? We don’t 

advertise for teachers.
“ Q. So that no one except your staff would have knowl­

edge about this vacancy; is that correct?
“ A. Not except accidentally, by word of mouth, right. 
“ Q. I want to make sure this is clear, actually what it 

was, you got some Federal funds for a new Program and 
you transferred the math teacher to this new Program 
and employed a new math teacher; is that correct?

“ A. Right.
“ Q. Where did you get this new math teacher?
“ A. I ’m not positive, I think this person came from 

Guntersville here.
“ Q. Was a resident of Alabama?

“ A. My understanding from the Supervisor, that is
97 correct.

“ Q. Did this person have an application on file, the 
person who was employed?

“ A . No.
“ Q. How did you get him?
“ A. This word of mouth I spoke of, this person was 

sought, as the report comes to me.
“ Q. Somebody on your staff?
“ A. Yes, someone.
“ Q. That knew about him?
“ A . Right.

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



“ Q. And advised him about this job?
“ A. That’s right.
“ Q. The existence of the position was not widely pub­

licized ?
“ A. It wasn’t publicized at all.
“ Q. At what time do you employ teachers for a school 

year, ordinarily?
“ A. Well, normally we start employing, sometimes as 

early as March and April and continue on until school 
opens.

“ Q. That’s March and April of the preceding year?
“ A. Yes, in other words, for the school opening Sep­

tember 2, we started last March, which there were no 
vacancies at that time, we didn’t have any vacancy at 

that time.
98 “ Q. And that’s for the ensuing school year?

“ A. Right.
“ Q. Beginning in September?
“ A. Right.
“ Q. After the school year has begun, I ’ll ask you 

whether or not it is, or is not rather difficult for a teacher 
to obtain employment?

“ A. I ’d say normally most channels, normal channels 
are closed at that time, sickness, resignation, things of 
that kind, causes a vacancy to occur later in the opening 
of school, the normal happenings of life.

“ Q. But if a teacher gets discharged in September, if 
he decided to go to work in another School System and 
start working, and he was discharged in September, 
chances are he would have a fairly difficult time getting 
regular employment?

“ A. Fairly rough going at that time.
“ Q. I would like to inquire, you mentioned this was the 

only ‘ colored’, I believe you put it, math teacher appli­
cant that you had available, you did have some white 
ones ?

—  215a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



“ A. I don’t know, I used that specifically because we 
were looking for a colored teacher.

“ Q. This is a Negro school?
“ A. Yes, well, it ’s staffed, we now have—all teachers 

in this school are Negro teachers, right.
99 “ Q. And all the children are Negro children?

“ A. In this particular school.
“ Q. How long have you had a desegregation plan, Mr. 

Almon?
“ A. We have completed 2 years.
“ Q. Was that voluntary or under a Court Order?
“ A. A  combination; we submitted a voluntary plan and 

then we were ordered to submit a new plan and there 
was a Court Order of desegregation.

“  Q. So then there was an action filed and you submitted 
a plan and the Court modified that plan; is that right?

“ A. Well, that’s about technically as good as I could 
put it, we did submit a plan after the Court proceedings 
started and then when we had the hearing we were re­
quested to submit another plan in certain frameworks, 
following another plan, which we did, and it was accepted.

“ Q. Mr. Almon, do you have any Negro teachers as­
signed to white schools?

“ A. Not regular teachers, no; we are staffed, yes.
“ Q. How many schools do you have in your system? 
“ A. How many in the system?
“ Q. Yes, sir, in your County, approximately?

“ A. 27 or 28.
100 “ Q. Approximately how many of those are like this 

West Madison Junior High, that is, as of the
1965-66 school year, and an all-Negro faculty and all- 
Negro student body?

“ A. As of last year—let me get this right—we had 3 
desegregated schools last year.

“ Q. They were formerly white schools?

—  216a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



“ A. Formerly white schools.
“ Q. How many Negro schools did you have?
“ A. 9; I ’m quite sure that’s correct; the City has just 

taken some of our schools and I didn’t know I was going 
to be asked on this particular point—I realize this is un­
necessary—but I think it ’s 9; I could count them; that’s 
correct.

“ Q. All nine of those, then, have the segregated 
faculty?

“ A. All-colored students and all-colored teachers.
“ Q. So that then any teacher that was employed, or 

at least this particular teacher, would have been required 
to teach on an all-Negro faculty in a school which retains 
an all-Negro student body?

“ A. That’s right.
“ Q. Does your plan envision a desegregated faculty?
“ A. It does not.

“ Q. It does not have any provision in it about the 
101 desegregation of faculty?

“ A. No, sir.
“ Q. So it is not the intention of the School Board at 

any time in the foreseeable future to assign teachers?
“ Mr. Bagley: I object to that.”
(The Court: Objection sustained.)
“ A. No plan at the present time.
“ Q. Mr. Almon, you never have seen Mrs. Peebles be­

fore today?
“ A. The lady here?
“ Q. Yes, my client.
“ A. To my knowledge, I haven’t.
“ Q. Approximately how many teachers did you employ 

after the school year had begun last year?
“ A. Including our expanded program, that would pos­

sibly run from 18 to 30 people.
“ Q. How many of these were Negroes?

—  217a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon



“ A. I don’t know; I ’d say they were—a lot of those 
people were not school teachers, they were teachers’ 
aides, etc.

“ Q. I meant school teachers.
“ A. You see this Program—well, I ’ve just made the 

statement of it and I really don’t know, to be specific.
“ Q. As far as you know, this math position that 

102 was changed from one person to another on March 
1, was the only vacancy you had that year for a 

math teacher?
“ A. For a math teacher, right. I do recall, after think­

ing it over, we might have had 1 or 2 people to go out on 
maternity leave, hut they were not math teachers.

“ Further Deponent Saith Not.

/ s /  NATHANIEL ALMON,
By: FRANCES FREEMON, 

Reporter.

—  218a —

Testimony of Nathaniel Almon

“ State of Alabama,
County of Madison.

Sworn to before me this August 22, 1966.

My Com. exp.: 10-12-66.
FRANCES FREEMON, 

Notary Public at Large, 
State of Tennessee.

(By Agreement).”

Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, I would like to recall Mr. 
Norman.

The Court: All right. Mr. Norman, take the stand.



103 Thereupon—
EVERETT NORMAN,

was recalled as a witness on behalf of the Defendants, 
and having previously been duly sworn, was examined 
and testified further as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Mr. Norman, I would like to ask you whether or not 
a visiting teacher’s position, time spent in that position 
would go toward tenure, creating tenure the same as 
teaching school?

A. Yes, that is stipulated in the guide lines of Title 1 
Program.

Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mr. Norman, a Title 1 teacher is not actually con­
sidered as a regular teacher, however?

A. It carries all the benefits, Mr. Williams, of a regular 
teacher.

Q. But such a teacher is not considered as a regular 
teacher in the school system?

A. Same pay, retirement, tenure, and all.
104 Q. Mr. Norman, will you please answer that ques­

tion directly. Is or is not a Title 1 teacher listed,
deemed or treated as a regular teacher, full regular 
teacher in the school system?

A. Yes, I would say so.
Q. You would say so. Now, if the Title 1 funds are 

based on appropriation of Congress, which has its limi­
tations, are they not?

A. Yes.

—  219a —

Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. When those funds are discontinued, who would be 
dismissed first, the Title 1 teacher or the regular teacher?

A. The teacher that the funds came to pay, same as 
your state.

Q. So that Title 1 teacher then is not exactly the same 
as a regular teacher in the school system, but is a special 
teacher employed under a special act of Congress. Isn’t 
that true?

A. But treated as any other teacher.
Q. As a matter of fact, this particular job did not in­

volve any actual teaching duties, did it?
A. No, no classroom instructions.
Mr. Williams: That’s all.

The Court: Any redirect?
105 Mr. Stevens: Yes, sir.

Redirect Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Is the teaching position which you mentioned still 
in effect; is that still in existence?

A. Yes, it is.
Q. And lasted throughout the school year of 1965-66? 
A. That’s right.
Q. Who held that position?
A. Mr. Stevens, I don’t remember the lady’s name.
Q. Was she colored or white?
A. Colored.
Mr. Williams: Objected to, your Honor.
The Court: Objection overruled.
Anything further Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, sir.

By the Court:
Q. Mr. Norman, are both of these plaintiffs now teach­

ing in your system?
A. Yes, sir, they are, started Monday.

— 220a —
Testimony of Everett Norman



Q. Have you made any more progress in the integration 
of your faculty this year than you made last year!

106 A. We have closed the last colored school and 
those students and the faculty are thoroughly inte­

grated.
Q. Do you have any school that does not have, shall 

we say, bi-racial faculty!
A. Yes, we have some schools, or at least one school, 

your Honor, that does not have any colored people in 
the community, and, therefore, there are no teachers— 
it is a three teacher school—and there are no teachers or 
pupils.

Q. You don’t mean by that if the administrative situa­
tion indicated it that you would not put a colored teacher 
there!

A. Oh, no. They just aren’t there.
Q. I see. How many schools will you have after every­

thing is closed that you are going to close!
A. Fifteen.
Q. Do I understand then that fourteen of those fifteen 

schools you now have a bi-racial faculty!
A. That’s right.
The Court: Witness is excused.
Call your next witness for the defendants.
Mr. Stevens: We close, your Honor.
The Court: Mr. Williams, do you have anything else 

to offer!
107 Mr. Williams: I would like to put Mrs. Rolfe and 

Mrs. Peebles on briefly, your Honor.
The Court: All right, put them on one at a time.

— 221a —
Testimony of Everett Norman



T e s t im o n y  o f  M rs . B e r n ic e  L . P e e b le s  

Thereupon—

MRS. BERNICE L. PEEBLES,
one of the plaintiffs herein, was called as a witness on 
her own behalf, and after having been first duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination,

By Mr. Williams:
Q. Mrs. Peebles, state whether or not Mr. E. S. Hill 

was one of the principals whom you talked to about a 
teaching job in Huntsville, Alabama!

A. Yes, he was.
Q. I believe you testified about this at the April 20th 

hearing that you had contacted him!
A. I didn’t call his name, but said I talked to some 

principals.
Q. Mr. Hill is principal of Tennessee Valley High 

School in Hillsboro, Alabama!
A. Yes.
Q. And he is the author of one of the exhibits for 

identification!
A. Yes, sir.

108 Q. That was offered but refused here today. Did 
you in April, 1966, make application to IBM Space 

Systems Center!
A. It was made before then, but that is when I received 

a reply.
Q. Shortly after going to Huntsville and making appli­

cation there for employment?
A. Yes.
Q. And one of the exhibits for identification, which was 

refused, represents a letter from them affirming that fact. 
Is that correct?

A. Yes.

— 222a —



Q. State whether or not in March, on 12 March, 1966, 
you made application to Northrop Space Laboratories for 
a teaching job?

A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was that in Huntsville, Alabama?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stevens: Your Honor, we object to all of this as 

leading.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) State whether or not—state 

where Northrop Space Laboratory is located?
A. Located in Huntsville, Alabama.

109 Mr. Williams: I believe that’s all.
The Court: Cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Mrs. Peebles, when did you move to Huntsville, 
Alabama?

A. About the middle of February. I don’t know the 
exact date.

Q. You testified at the prior hearing on February 12th. 
Is that correct?

A. Yes, somewhere along there.
Q. Did you every apply for a teaching position with 

the Superintendent of Education at Madison County, 
Alabama?

A. No, sir.
Q. Did you ever apply for a teaching position of City 

School Systems at Huntsville, Alabama?
A. Yes, I have sent an application to the City.
Q. You did apply?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That was July 23, 1966?
A. Yes, sometime this summer.

—  223a —

Testimony of Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles



Q. Sometime this last summer after the Fayetteville 
school year was out!

A. Yes, sir.
110 Mr. Stevens: That’s all.

Redirect Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mrs. Peebles, prior to July, 1966, had you made in­
quiry regarding------

Mr. Stevens: Objected to, your Honor, as leading.
Q. (Continued)------ teaching positions?
The Court: Objection sustained. Don’t lead the wit­

ness, Mr. Williams.
Q. State whether or not you had made any inquiries! 
A. Yes, I had talked to principals to see whether or 

not they had any positions open in my field.
Q. Where? In what school system?
A. In the Alabama School System, Huntsville School 

System.
Q. Was it based on that—what did you do or not do in, 

based on those inquiries?
A. Well, they didn’t have anything open, so I didn’t 

get employment.
Q. Did you know of any positions open with Madison 

County School System in Madison, Alabama?
A. No, I didn’t.

111 Q. In Madison County, Alabama?
A. No, I didn’t.

Mr. Williams: That’s all.

Recross-Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Now, you talked to the principals of what schools? 
A. I know I talked to one, Council Chain, I believe.
Q. Talked to who?

—  224a —

Testimony of Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles



A. The principal of Council Chain School. I got these 
names from someone else. I didn’t know anyone down 
there. It was through word of mouth.

Q. You said you talked to the principal of one school. 
A. I didn’t say one. You asked me the name of a 

school, but I talked to a number of principals. I am tell- 
ing you I got the word who the principals were through 
someone else, because I didn’t know anyone down there. 

Q. How did you talk to them!
A. I called them on the telephone.
Q. You didn’t even go to the principal’s office!
A. No.

Q. You called them up on the telephone!
112 A. Yes, and asked if they had any position open. 

Q. Principals of how many schools!
A. I don’t know the exact number.
Q. Do you know what school!
A. No, not offhand.
Mr. Stevens: That’s all.
The Court: Anything further!
Mr. Williams: No, your Honor.
The Court: The witness is excused. Call your next wit­

ness.
Mr. Williams: Mrs. Rolfe.

Thereupon—
MRS. ELVIRA ROLFE,

one of the plaintiffs in this action, was called as a wit­
ness on her own behalf, and having previously been duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

Q. Mrs. Rolfe, you testified previously with regard to 
your elementary teaching certificate. I won’t go over that

—  225a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira Rolfe



testimony, except to ask you this: You have heard Mrs. 
Maddox testify here this morning. Do you still re-affirm 
your testimony that you made on April 20th?

A. I do.
113 Q. And that is that after speaking to the superin­

tendent, you took your certificate in and deposited
in the office there. Is that correct?

A. Yes, I  did.
Q. I believe you testified that you weren’t positive 

whether it was Miss Louise or her sister? Is that correct? 
Mr. Stevens: I object to that, your Honor.
Q. I will ask you, are you positive whether or not it 

was Miss Louise or her sister?
A. I am not positive.
Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, I object to that. 
The Court: On what grounds?
Mr. Stevens: Leading and suggestive.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) With whom did you leave the 

elementary teaching certificate?
A. With the one in the office. Sometimes Miss Louise 

was in the office, and sometimes her sister. Her sister is 
named Mary, I don’t know, but one or the other, and 
sometimes both are there. I  left it with the one in the 
office.

Q. And that was when?
A. That was after we knew that our school, that

114 something—that there would be a change.
Q. And that was about what month in 1965 ?

A. That was either sometime the latter part of April 
or May.

Q. Now then, also, when you talked—did you talk with 
the superintendent about the day of your discharge or 
shortly thereafter, with Mr. Norman?

A. About my certificate.

—  226a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira Rolfe



Q. Did you talk with him at all!
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Was anything at all said about your certificate?
A. Not about the certificate.
Q. What did Mr. Norman say to you?
A. He talked to me about the position being abolished 

and that he though there would be something for me to 
do by Christmas.

Q. Did he say anything about—state whether or not 
he would or would not contact you if in event he had such 
a vacancy?

A. No, but I understood that he would if anything hap­
pened. I thought that was the conversation.

Q. Now, Mrs. Bolfe, were you ever advised by anyone 
that it would be necessary to file a written—a new written 

application for employment in the school system to be 
115 transferred from secondary to elementary employ­

ment?
A. No.
Q. Has that ever been the practice down there or in 

any other school system that you know of?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. After your discharge, what did you do with regard 

to your residence; did you stay there in Fayetteville or 
go some place else?

A. I stayed there two days. I left the 10th of Septem­
ber and went to Nashville to try to get work.

Q. Was there any occasion where anyone in the office 
told you that they would mail you your check?

A. Yes, I think it was Miss Louise’s sister that was in 
the front office, and Mr. Norman said, “ Be sure to give 
her your address so she can mail you your check.’ ’

Q. And you did do so at that time?
A. Oh, yes; yes.
Q. Now, when you returned to Nashville, what did you

—  227a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira Rolfe



do with reference to obtaining other employment, or not 
obtaining other employment?

A. (No response.)
Q. It is hard not to lead. State whether you did or 

did not apply for employment in any other school system 
other than Lincoln County School System?

116 A. Oh, yes.
Q. What school system did you apply for employ­

ment?
A. I applied at Metro in Nashville, and I applied at all

the different jobs they were setting up. And I applied------
Q. You are a widow, I believe.
A. Yes, a grasswidow, divorcee.
Q. You have no savings?
Mr. Stevens: Objected to as immaterial, your Honor. 
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Do you have any sort of income 

other than your own employment?
A. No.
Mr. Stevens: Objected to, your Honor.
The Court: Objection sustained as immaterial.
Q. (By Mr. Williams) Were you ever granted regular 

employment in the Nashville School System, Mrs. Rolfe, 
or the Metropolitan School System?

A. In the After School Study Center. It pays a little, 
and the lady told me to take it, said, “ You take that be­
cause that will put you in good standing with better------ ”

Q. I would like to hand you a document which pur­
ports to be a reference form addressed to Mr. Looby in 

your behalf, and ask if you gave Mr. Looby as one
117 of your references when you applied for employ­

ment in Nashville at the Metropolitan School Sys­
tem? Did you give Mr. Looby as one of your references?

A. Yes, I did.
Mr. Williams: We would like to introduce that as an 

exhibit, if your Honor please.

—  228a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira Rolfe



Mr. Stevens: No objection.
The Court: Without objection, let it be marked as an 

exhibit in the next numerical order.
(Thereupon the document referred to was marked “ Ex­

hibit 31.” )
Q. (By Mr. Williams) You were never employed as a 

regular teacher in the Metropolitan School System, were 
you!

A. No, I wasn’t.
Q. But you did obtain irregular employment as a sub­

stitute. Is that correct!
A. Yes.
Q. And this work, this after school work that you are 

talking about!
A. Yes.
Q. And by that you were able to earn the magnificent 

sum of $1425.00 over the entire year. Is that correct!
A. Yes.

118 Q. How did you come to get back your elementary 
teaching certificate!

A. When I applied to Metro Board of Education, they 
asked for my certificate. I wrote------

Q. That was after your return to Nashville!
A. After my return to Nashville. I wrote to the Board 

of Education for my certificate and they mailed to me 
both. They were put in a plain envelope, not a plain 
envelope, but a Board of Education envelope and sent 
to me, my two certificates.

Q. Your secondary and elementary!
A. Yes.
Q. Was there a letter of transmittal along with them!
A. No.
Q. Just in a plain Board of Education envelope!
A. Yes.
The Court: Excuse me, Mr. Williams.

—  229a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira Rolfe



What was that sum she said she earned as a substitute? 
Mr. Williams: The total sum she earned both as a sub­

stitute and in this after school work was $1425.00, I be­
lieve your Honor—$1425.25.

The Court: Thank you.
119 Mr. Williams: That’s all.

The Court: Cross-examine.

Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Stevens:

Q. Mrs. Bolfe, when is the last time you were in Fay­
etteville ?

A. The last time I was in Fayetteville?
Q. Yes, ma’am.
A. Approximately------
Q. Have you been visting back to Fayetteville since 

the time you were dismissed in 1965?
A. I have been there once.
Q. You went back one time?
A. The 4th of July.
Q. You had friends in Fayetteville you visited after 

you were dismissed as a teacher, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Occasionally you would visit in Fayetteville?
A. I couldn’t visit because I was working. I was on 

call.
Q. You were working in Nashville?
A. Yes.
Q. When you weren’t working, you did visit some?

A. My work was on call, so it was necessary for
120 me to stay where I could be reached.

Q. So you deny you were back in Fayetteville and 
went to the superintendent’s office and picked up your 
certificate ?

—  230a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira Rolfe



A. No, I said my certificates were mailed to me. I 
didn’t pick them up.

Q. You got no letter that came with them?
A. No, I didn’t get a letter with them.
Q. Were they sent by registered mail, certified mail, 

or how?
A. No.
Q. Just a plain envelope?
A. Plain envelope. It wasn’t necessary to register it. 
Q. You don’t have the envelope, do you?
A. No. I wish I did.
Q. Now, Mrs. Rolfe, are you a native of Alabama?
A. No.
Q. Where did you go to high school?
Mr. Williams: Objected to as being irrelevant, if your 

Honor please.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) You were a graduate of Florida 

A. & M.f 
121 A. Yes.

Mr. Williams: Objected to as being irrelvant.
The Court: Objection sustained.
Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, this is cross-exam­

ination. I think I can make it competent.
The Court: With that assurance, the objection will be 

overruled.
Mr. Williams: I didn’t hear what counsel said.
The Court: He says he can connect it up and make 

it competent.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) You are a graduate of Florida 

A & M?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go to high school?
A. In Jacksonville, Florida.
Q. Are you a native of Jacksonville?

—  231a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira Rolfe



T e s t im o n y  o f  M rs . E lv ir a  R o l fe  

A. Out from Jacksonville.
Q. What is your birth place, where were you born? 
A. Out in the country from Jacksonville.
Q. Same county?
A. Duval County.
Q. That is where you went to grade school?
A. Yes, to the country school there.

Q. And high school?
122 A. In Jacksonville.

Q. Did you skip any grades?
Mr. Williams: If your Honor please, I honestly don’t 

see how this could be competent.
The Court: Mr. Williams, counsel has assured the Court 

that he will connect this up and make it competent.
Mr. Williams: All right.
Q. (By Mr. Stevens) Did you go to an eight year gram­

mar school?
A. My mother was a teacher and she taught us at 

school, and she taught us at home, and when I entered, 
went to high school, I was able to enter the grade. My 
mother was a teacher and my father was a teacher.

Q. How old were you when you went to High School? 
A. A little bit over thirteen.
Q. When you went to high school?
A. Yes.
Q. You graduated from High School when you were 

seventeen years old?
A. I graduated------
Q. You were—when you were 13, did you start in high 

school ?
A. No, no. I graduated from college at 17.

123 Q. You graduated from college when you were 17? 
A. Yes.

Q. In other words, you are telling us that you started 
to college when you were 13 years old?

—  232a —



A. A little over.
Q. I beg your pardon.
A. I was a little over 13.
Mr. Williams: I would like to advise counsel that I am 

very proud of the fact that I started when I was 14, and 
I still don’t see the relevancy.

The Court: I don’t either, hut I am taking Mr. Stevens’ 
word that he is going to connect it up somehow.

Q. (By Mr. Stevens) You state you were born in 1905?
A. Yes.
Q. And entered college at a little over 13, is that right?
A. Yes.
Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, that is what I had 

in mind, reflect on her credibility.
The Court: I don’t think that you connected it up at 

all and the Court doesn’t appreciate you, after the 
124 Court having initially sustained the objection, none 

of this makes any difference. I don’t see how it 
would reflect on her credibility at all.

Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, those dates show 
1905, she would have had to get out of college in 1922. 
I thought she would surely admit this personnel record 
was wrong in stating 1905.

The Court: All right, the Court will accept your ex­
planation.

Any redirect, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: No, your Honor.
The Court: The witness is excused. Call your next 

witness on rebuttal.
Mr. Williams: May it please the Court, that concludes 

our testimony, except we would also like to offer the 
deposition of Beverend Ezekial Bell, which was taken 
at the same time of Mr. Almon’s.

The Court: Let it be filed.
Mr. Stevens: If your Honor please, there are certain 

portions of that deposition that I would like to object to.

—  233a —

Testimony of Mrs. Elvira Rolfe



—  234a —

Testimony of Ezekial Bell

The Court: Are they noted in the deposition!
Mr. Stevens: I can note them on the margin.

125 The Court: If you would, make a check mark to 
anything you object to.

All right, gentlemen, is there anything else?
Mr. Stevens: Nothing else.
Mr. Williams: That will be all, if your Honor please. 
(Thereupon the deposition of Bev. Ezekial Bell was 

copied into the record, and is as follows:)

Deposition of:
“ EZEKIAL BELL,

after having been first duly sworn, deposed as follows:

“ Direct Examination,
By Mr. Williams:

“ Q. This is Beverend Ezekial Bell!
“ A. Yes, sir.
“ Q. Beverend Bell, where do you live!
“ A. 101 Whitney, N. E. Huntsville.
“ Q. Alabama!
“ A. Yes, sir.
“ Q. How long have you lived in Huntsville!
“ A. For the past seven years.
“ Q. What is your occupation!
“ A. Minister of the Fellowship Presbyterian Church. 

“ Q. Is there an institution known as a Day-Care 
126 Center connected with this Church!

“ A. Yes, sir.
“ Q. What does this consist o f!
“ A. This is a Day-Care nursery program operated in 

our Church and as operated for the past 7 years and we 
have a program for children from 2% to 6 years of age 
and this program operates 10 months out of the year.



“ Q. Is teaching these children a part of this program?
“ A. Yes, sir, it is.
“ Q. Do you employ any teachers on your staff?
“ A. We employ 3 teachers and last year we had 6 

aides, teachers’ assistants, last year we had 3 full-time 
teachers.

“ Q. Three full-time teachers and 6 aides?
“ A. Yes, sir.
“ Q. I ’ll hand you a letter which appears to bear your 

signature and ask you if you wrote that letter?
“ A. That’s my letter.
“ Q. Will you let that be introduced as Exhibit 1 to 

your testimony?
“ A. Yes, sir.
“ Mr. Bagley: Object to the introduction of the let­

ter.”
127 “ Q. State whether or no on February 21, 1966, you

had any contact with Mrs. Bernice L. Peebles, one 
of the plaintiffs in this case?

“ A. Yes, sir, I did.
“ Q. What was the nature of that, please?
“ A. Mrs. Peebles came to me and asked if we had a 

Degree Program and if we were in need of any teachers 
at that time and if we had any position she would like 
to make application for such position, and I told her at 
the time that we did not have anything, but we would 
very happily keep her application on file and would let 
her know if any positions became available in our school.

“Q. Would you have employed Mrs. Peebles if you had 
had a position?

“A. Yes, sir, we would have.
“Q. Have you had a position open?
“A. We still have an opening this coming year, we 

haven’t any position since, one of our teachers is pres­
ently out on maternity leave and will not he back this year.

—  235a —

Testimony of Ezekial Bell



“ Q. If you had had a vacancy, would you have em­
ployed Mrs. Peebles!

“ A. Yes, sir, we would have.

“Cross-Examination,
By Mr. Bagley:

“ Q. Mr. Bell, how many students do you have!
128 “A. We have 54 students; last year we had 54.

“Q. Actually you would call these ‘students’, these
are—you don’t conduct a school, actually you have 
a nursery program!

“ A. No, sir, kindergarten, we also have a license from 
the state to operate a licensed kindergarten and Degree 
program!

“ Q. What is that!
“A. It’s a pre-school program and we have such activi­

ties as free play and where they engage in science activi­
ties, not in a form you would do in the first grade or 
early—elementary school, but it’s a play-type program 
where the youngsters are engaged in science activities; 
stories are read to them.

“ Q. What are your qualifications for teachers!
“A. At least a B. S. teacher and this year we would 

like to have a Master’s Degree because of the increase 
we expect to have in your youngsters.

“ Q. You require that they be certified teachers!
“ A. We require that our head teacher have at least 

the equivalent of at least a B. S. Degree.
“ Q. Do you require that be certified as teachers by 

the State of Alabama!
“ A. We don’t require they be certified as teachers

129 by the State of Alabama.
“ A. We don’t require that, but they must have the 

equivalent of 4 years of college, whether they go through 
the State Board and get certificates, we are not concerned,

—  236a —

Testimony of Esekial Bell



— 237a —
T e s tim o n y  o f  E sek ia l B ell

but we do require they give us a transcript, saying they 
have completed at least 4 years of college and this year 
we will require at least a Master’s Degree for our head 
teacher.

“ Further Deponent Saith Not.

/ s /  EZEKIEL BELL,
By FRANCES FREEMON, 

Reporter.”

State of Alabama 
County of Madison

Sworn to before me this August 22, 1966. My com. 
exp.: 10-12-66.

FRANCES FREEMON,
Notary Public-at-Large,

State of Tennessee.

(By Agreement.)

•  # # * * * *

Mr. Stevens: Let the record show I do not have any 
objection to the above deposition of Mr. Bell.

130 The Court: Mr. Stevens, the facilities are available 
to you until 2:00 o’clock for the purpose of making 

your offer of proof.
We will consider court not to be adjourned until after 

this has been completed.
(Thereupon the Court retired from the Courtroom and 

the offer of proof was made by Mr. Stevens, which has 
been inserted in the record at the proper place.)

(Thereupon the trial was concluded and court adjourned 
until Monday morning, August 29, 1966, at 9:00 o’clock 
a. m.)

*



MEMORANDUM OPINION— FILED AUGUST 30, 1966.

The Court has considered the additional evidence ad­
duced herein on August 26, 1966, the stipulations in and 
subsequent to the pretrial order of August 18, 1966, as 
thereafter amended and supplemented, and previous find­
ings and conclusions. See memorandum opinion of July 
20, 1966. From all this, the Court finds:

(1) The plaintiff, Mrs. Rolfe, would have received an 
additional amount of $3,988.56 as salary from the defend­
ants in the school year 1965-1966 had she not been wrong­
fully discharged.

(2) The plaintiff, Mrs. Rolfe, earned within the afore­
mentioned period from other employment an aggregate 
of $1,425,25.

(3) Contrary to the dictum in footnote 5, memorandum 
opinion of July 20, 1966, Mrs. Rolfe has not now carried 
the burden of proving that she delivered her certification 
to teach in the elementary grades to the office of the de­
fendant, Mr. Norman, in the Spring of 1965, nor that this 
certificate was mailed to her from said office subsequent 
to her dismissal.

(4) The plaintiff, Mrs. Peebles, would have received an 
additional sum of $3,173.60 as salary from the defendants 
in the aforementioned school year had she not been wrong­
fully discharged.

(5) The plaintiff, Mrs. Peebles, used reasonable dili­
gence to seek other employment as a public school teacher 
following her aforementioned wrongful discharge.

The burden of proving mitigation of damages was on 
the defendants. International Correspondence School v. 
Crabtree (1931), 162 Tenn. 70, 34 S. W. (2d) 447 [1];

—  238a —

Memorandum Opinion Filed August 30,1966



M em ora n d u m  O pin ion  F ile d  A u g u s t  30 ,196 6

John S. Doane Co. v. Martin, C. C. A. 1st (1948), 164 F. 
(2d) 537; News Publishing Co. v. Burger, C. A. Tenn. 
(1911), 2 Tenn. C. C. A. (Higgins) 179; cf. also Canning 
v. Star Publishing Co., D. C. Del. (1955), 130 F. Supp. 697.

The respective plaintiffs are entitled to recover for the 
wrongful breach of their respective contracts of employ­
ment the sum which would have come to each plaintiff had 
the contract continued, less what each plaintiff might have 
earned in some other suitable employment by reasonable 
diligence. Godson v. MacFadden (1931), 162 Tenn. 528, 
39 S. W. (2d) 287. Each may also be entitled to recover 
all or a portion of their counsel fees.

It has heretofore been found by the Court that the de­
fendants have been guilty of “ * * * a long-continued 
pattern of evasion and obstruction # * *”  of the desegre­
gation of the public schools system of Lincoln County, 
Tennessee. In such event counsel fees are allowable, and 
disallowance of such fees is an abuse of judicial discretion. 
Bell v. School Board of Powhatan County, Virginia, C. A. 
4tli (1963), 321 F. (2d) 494, 500. Unless the school au­
thorities’ “ * * * unreasonable [and] obdurate obstinancy 
* * *”  compels the bringing of an action, the Court does 
not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow counsel fees. 
Bradley v. School Board of the City of Richmond, C. A. 4th 
(1965), 345 F. (2d) 310.

It does not appear that the defendants have violated 
any order of this Court or acted improperly since the orig­
inal findings of July 20, 1966. Cf. Monroe v. Board of 
Com., City of Jackson, D. C. Tenn. (1965), 244 F. Supp.
. . . ,  366. Although the defendants have not yet estab­
lished definite objective standards for the employment and 
retention of teachers in and for the Lincoln County, Ten­
nessee, public school system as ordered, the 90-day period 
for such action has not yet expired. Further, it is undis-

—  239a —



J u d g m en t on  D ec is io n  b y  th e  C ou rt

puted that the faculties of all but one of the 15 schools 
in that system have now been integrated to some degree 
by the defendants. This indicates good faith, even if be­
lated, implementation of the defendants’ plan of desegre­
gation. Under all these circumstances, the Court is of 
the opinion, finds and concludes that the defendants’ con­
tribution to the respective counsel fees of the plaintiffs 
should be limited to $250 in each instance.

Accordingly, the clerk will enter judgment against the 
defendants: in favor of the plaintiff Mrs. Rolfe for $2,- 
563.31, and in favor of the plaintiff M!rs. Peebles for 
$3,173.60. The clerk will tax $250 as a part of the costs 
in favor of each respective plaintiff as contributions to 
the counsel fees of each.

Other matters are reserved.

File:

—  240a —

United States District Judge.

JUDGMENT ON DECISION BY THE CO U R T- 
FILED AUGUST 30, 1966.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
For the

Eastern District of Tennessee, Winchester Division.

MRS. ELVIRA S. ROLFE and MRS. '  
BERNICE L. PEEBLES,

COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 
OF LINCOLN COUNTY, TEN­
NESSEE, Et Al.

Civil Action. 
File No. 781. 
Judgment.

This action came on for trial before the Court, Honor­
able C. G. Neese, United States District Judge, presiding,



and the issues having been duly tried and a decision hav­
ing been duly rendered,

It Is Ordered and Adjudged that judgment be entered 
against the defendants: in favor of the plaintiff Mrs. Rolfe 
for $2,563.31, and in favor of the plaintiff Mrs. Peebles 
for $3,173.60. The clerk will tax $250 as a part of the 
costs in favor of each respective plaintiff as contributions 
to the counsel fees for each. Other matters are reserved.

—  241a —

Notice of Appeal

Dated at Winchester, Tennessee, this 30th day of Au­
gust, 1966.

KARL D. SAULPAW, JR., 
Clerk of Court, 

By AGNES HAWKINS,
Deputy Clerk.

NOTICE OF APPEAL— FILED SEPTEMBER 7, 1966.

Notice is hereby given that the County Board of Edu­
cation of Lincoln County, Tennessee, A. G. Jennings, Jr., 
J. C. King, Thomas Smith, Tom Porter, Prank Erwin, Joe 
Taft, Ernest Pendergrass, Charles Delap, Edwin Flint, 
and Tommy Warren, and Everett C. Norman, Superin­
tendent of Schools of Lincoln County, Tennessee, defend­
ants above named, hereby appeal to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the order of 
the Court entered August 11, 1966, and the judgment of 
this Court entered August 30, 1966.

STEVENS and BAGLEY,
By ROBERT W. STEVENS, 

Attorneys for Defendants,
220 East College Street, 

Fayetteville, Tennessee.