Veteran v. New York Affidavits in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgement

Public Court Documents
February 6, 1990

Veteran v. New York Affidavits in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgement preview

Veteran v. New York Affidavits in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgement of Lovett; DeBerardinis; Boolukos

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Volume 6. Memorandum Re: Major Legislative Activity of LDF - 1978, 1978. ff977d8e-bb92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/e431df15-adcc-42e1-8d5a-281a0da5f56e/memorandum-re-major-legislative-activity-of-ldf-1978. Accessed August 19, 2025.

    Copied!

    346 

r MEMORANDUM 
December 28, 1978 

\o FROM: Elaine R. Jones 

RE: Major Legislative Activity of LpF - 1978 

In May 1977, the Legal Defense Fund initiated its legislative 

activity in Washington, D.C. pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of 

1976, tax-exempt charitable organizations could undertake to become 

actively involved in the legislative process without forfeiting 

tax-exempt status. 

LDF's principal areas of concern have been (a) proposed legis- 

lation which affects the operation of the courts and (b) legisla- 

tion which affects a civil right which LDF litigates to protect 

whether that right is created by statute or protected by the Consti- 

tution of the United States. 

Some examples of issues to which we have devoted our attention 

and focused our efforts are as follows: 

Te Defeat of Proposal to Divide the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals: 

In March 1977, just prior to the passage of the Senate version 

of the judgeship bill, Senator Eastland tacked a provision onto 

the bill which would have created two courts of appeal from 

the present, six-state Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The 

New Circuits would have been divided along geographical lines 

with the two states of Louisiana and Texas creating a new cir- 

cuit and the four states of Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi 

and Florida creating a new Deep South Circuit. LDF actively 

opposed this proposed "split" of the Fifth Circuit because of 

1) its severe erosion of the federalizing function of 

the courts 

2) the likelihood of its negative impact on civil rights 

3) the “parochializing" of energy and environmental issues 

in the courts 

4) the increase in the workload of the Supreme Court. 

The "split" had already passed the Senate when LDF began its 

legislative activity. However, from August 1977 to October 1978, 

LDF analyzed the cases, briefed the issue, coordinated and 

marshalled support from other groups, from our supporters in 

the Fifth Circuit States,and concentrated our efforts in the 

House Judiciary Committee. During the Conference between the 

two Houses, for 6 months this issue stalemated the passage of 

the judgeship bill. LDF ‘during this period worked with both 



tI. 

Tit. 

Iv. 

the House and the Senate The bill was passed in October 1978 
without the split or the circuit (see attached statement of 
Senator Kennedy from Congressional Record, October 7, 1978). 

Civil Rights Reorganization - Federal Agencies 

In February 1978 the President signed Reorganization Plan #1 
and forwarded it to the House and Senate. LDF was actively 
involved in drafting suggestions and coordinating with other 
civil rights groups and the black caucus our ideas of what a 
civil rights reorganization of the federal agencies should in- 
clude. All of our suggestions and recommendations were adopted 
by the White House and approved in April and July of 1978 by 
both Houses of Congress. 

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 

On September 13, 1978, the House passedits version of the Civil 
Service Reform Bill. The Legal Defense Fund worked diligently 
through the Spring and Summer of 1978 to insure that both bills 
gave the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission full authority 
and jurisdiction to hear and decide claims of employment dis- 
crimination lodged by federal employees, the same jurisdiction 
as that held by the Appeals Review Board of the Civil Service 
Commission. We also wanted to make sure the Civil Service Re- 
form Act applied to the public sector similar rules and require- 
ments in enforcing employment discrimination law in the adminis- 
trative context as is applied in the private sector (e.g., coun- 
sel fees to prevailing party etc.) The House and Senate dead- 
locked over the issue of complete jurisdiction by the EEOC over 
federal employees in discrimination matters where there was 
also a violation of a merit principal, the so-called "mixed 
case." LDF worked within the Conference Committee to preserve 
both EEOC jurisdiction and procedural protections for federal 
employees. 

Bill to Redraft and Consolidate the Civil Rights Laws (H.R. 9804) 

In October 1977, H.R. 9804 was introduced by Mr. Caldwell Butler 
of Virginia and some other Republicans in the House. The 

bill expressly repealed the civil rights provisions of 42 
statutes. The bill in its attempt to consolidate existing 
Civil Rights laws(in such areas as employment, housing, educa- 
tion, sex discrimination) also resulted in narrowing the cover- 
age of the law in several areas, weakening established stan- 
dards defining discrimination and by creating an unworkable 
apparatus for federal enforcement. LDF shared its views with 
House Judiciary Committee on Civil and Constitutional Rights. 
In cooperation with the Leadership Conference and other groups 
we prepared a detailed analysis of the legislation in the 
Spring of 1978 by subject area. No hearings have been scheduled.

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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


Additional info

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

Return to top