Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company Record on Appeal

    I n  the

Mtritd* Stall's (Crnjrt nt Appeals
F or th e  F if t h  Circuit

No. 25826

R ush  P ettw ay  & P eter J . W ren n , et al .,

Appellants,
versus

A merican Cast I ron P ipe Com pany ,
Appellee.

APPE A L PROM  T H E  U N ITED  STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR T H E  N O R TH E R N  DISTRICT OE A L A B A M A

RECORD ON APPEAL

Oscar W . A dams

1630 Fourth Avenue North 
Birmingham, Alabama

J ack  Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, I I I  
R obert B elton 
G abrielle A. K irk  
W illiam  B . T urner 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Appellants



I N D E X
PAGE

Exhibit “A ” Annexed to Foregoing Motion—Let­
ter dated May 29, 1967 ........................................  8

Exhibit “B” Annexed to Foregoing Motion—Let­
ter dated July 13, 1967 ........ ................................ 9

Affidavit of Peter J. Wrenn ............................................  11

Exhibit “ 1” Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit— 
Charge of Discrimination ................................... 14

Exhibit “2”  Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit— 
Letter dated August 9, 1967 ................................... 17

Motion for Disposition of Motion for Relief Pending 
A ppeal...............................................................................  18

Order dated November 28, 1967 ..................................... _ 19

Motion of Defendant to Dismiss Motion of Wrenn 
for Injunctive Relief ......................................................  20

Exhibit “A ” Annexed to Foregoing Motion—Re­
ceipt for Service of Charge .....    23

Transcript of Proceedings ................................................  28

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn 
for Injunctive Relief ....................................................  249

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn 
for Injunctive R e lie f......................................................  256

Notice of Appeal ...............................................................  257

Motion by Petitioner Wrenn for Injunctive Relief
Pending Appeal ..........................................................  1

Certificate of Service 258



u

T e s t i m o n y

PAGE

Plaintiffs’ Witnesses:

Peter J. Wrenn—
Direct ................................................................... 29
Cross ..................................................................... 48
Redirect ............................................................... 68
Recross ................................................................. 77

Leonard Lewis—
Direct ................................................................... 79
Cross ..................................................................... 82
Redirect ............................................................... 84

James Baskerville—
Direct ................................................................... 87
Cross ..................................................................... 89

Henry Goodgame—
Direct ................................................................... 93
Cross ..................................................................... 97
Redirect ..................................................    102
Recross ..........................   103

Defendant’s Witnesses:

Frank H. Copeland—
Direct ................................................................... 105
Cross ..................................................................... 126
Redirect ...............................................................  135

Kenneth R. Daniel—
Direct .................................      137
Cross ..............................................................   141
Redirect .....................................      145



I ll

E xhibits

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits P̂agT*
1— Letter dated July 13, 1967 .....................  36

2— Letter dated June 7, 1965 ......    39

3— Letter dated November, 1963 ..............   41

4— Proposal ....................................................  42
5— Decision of EEOC dated November 7,

1967 ............................................................ 68

6— G.E.D. Certificate ..................................... 69

7— Diploma .............    69

8— G.E.D. Test ..............................................  70

9— Decision by Commissioner in Acipco case 71

10—  Charge of Discrimination .....................  75

11— Amended Commission Decision ...........  142

Defendant’s Exhibits

1— Decision of Commission dated May 22,
1967 ............................................................ 49

2— Letter dated November 26, 1963 ...........  61

3— Letter dated October 16, 1964 ...............  63

4— Note ............................................................  64

5— Letter dated March 14, 1965 .................  65

6— Letter dated June 8, 1965 ..................... 66

7—  Charge ......................................................  77

8—  Charge ......................................................  83

9— Vote Record ..............................................  84

Printed
Page

148

149 

153 

155

162

167

169

170 

172

190

191

192

195

196 

198 

200

203

204

205

206



IV

Offered Printed 
Page Page

10— Written Statement .....................................  106 208

11— Memorandum .......................................... 107 209

12— Written Statement ..... ............................  107 210

13— Written Statement ..................................  107 211

14— Written Statement ..................................  108 212

15— Recommendation .................................... 109 213

16— Complaint .................................................. 110 215

17— Complaint File ........................................  112 217

18— Letter dated May 9, 1956 ....................... 112 219

19— Letter dated November 9, 1966 .............  112 220

20— Letter dated November 18, 1966 ...........  113 221

21— Letter dated May 29, 1967 ..................... 113 224:

22— Notice dated August 9, 1967 ................... 113 225

23— Letter dated August 18, 1967 ............... 114 226

24— Letter dated August 25, 1967 ..............  115 227

25— Communication ........................................  115 229

26— Minutes of Committee ............................  117 230

27— Minutes of Special M eeting................... 118 232

28— Letter dated September 28, 1967 .........  119 234

29— Communication ........................................  120 240

30— Notification .............................................. 121 242

31— Letter dated July 26, 1965 ...................   122 243



IN  THE

Intteft i§>tat£0 liBtrtrt OXuurt
FOB T H E

N orthern  D istrict of A labama 

S outhern  D ivision 

C. A. No. 66-315

R u sh  P ettw ay , P eter J. W r e n n , et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

A merican  Cast I ron P ipe C om pan y , a corp ora tion ,

Defendant,

U nited  S tates

E qual E m ploym ent  Opportu n ity  C om m ission ,

Intervenor.

Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive 
Relief Pending Appeal

T o : The Honorable Seybonrne H. Lynne,
United States District Judge for the 
United States District Court,
Northern District of Alabama,
Southern Division,
Birmingham, Alabama.

Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. §1651 and 
Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, peti­
tioner, Peter J. Wrenn, through his undersigned attorneys, 
move the court for an order requiring his immediate rein­



2

statement as an employee of American Cast Iron Pipe Com­
pany in Birmingham, Alabama, pending the resolution of 
the appeal taken in this action. The appeal in this action 
is presently pending before the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, styled Rush Pettway, et al. 
v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, No. 24810. In sup­
port of this motion petitioner respectfully shows:

1. Petitioner is a Negro citizen of the United States, re­
siding in Birmingham, Alabama. From May 26, 1950 until 
September 5, 1967 petitioner was an employee of American 
Cast Iron Pipe Company in Birmingham (hereinafter “the 
Company” ). On September 5, 1967 petitioner was dis­
charged from employment by the Company because he was 
seeking relief from the racially-discriminatory practices of 
the Company alleged to be in violation of Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.

2. On November 22, 1965 petitioner joined with several 
other Negro employees of the Company in filing charges of 
employment discrimination bhsed on race with the United 
States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (here­
inafter “EEOC” ). On February 3, 1966, EEOC found rea­
sonable cause to believe the allegations made in the charge 
were substantiated. By letter dated April 13, 1966, EEOC 
notified petitioner and the other charging parties that 
EEOC had been unable to conciliate the charges and that 
the charging parties were entitled to maintain a civil action 
for relief in a United States District Court.

3. On May 13, 1966, petitioner and several other Negro 
employees of the Company filed a complaint against the 
Company in this Court seeking relief against the alleged

Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive
Relief Pending Appeal



3

racially-discriminatory employment practices of the Com­
pany. On June 2, 1966, the Company filed a motion to dis­
miss the complaint, alleging, inter alia, that EEOC had not 
undertaken to conciliate the charges on which reasonable 
cause had been found and that conciliation by EEOC was 
a jurisdictional prerequisite to invoking the jurisdiction of 
the district court.

4. After briefs had been submitted on the question of 
conciliation and the matter had been heard orally, this 
Court on March 13, 1967 dismissed the complaint in con­
formity with the opinion of the court in Dent v. St. Louis- 
Scm Francisco Bailway Co., et al., (also presently on appeal 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 
No. 24810) in which the court held that an attempt at con­
ciliation is a jurisdictional prerequisite to invoking the 
jurisdiction of the district court.

5. On April 6, 1967 the plaintiffs in this action, including 
petitioner, filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit, appealing from the March 13, 1967 
order of dismissal of this Court.

6. During the pendency of this action in the District 
Court, petitioner was suspended by the Company for a 
period of two weeks, without pay, because of his alleged 
altercation with one Glen Limbaugh, a white employee of 
the Company. The circumstances surrounding petitioner’s 
suspension are as follows:

On September 9, 1966, Glen Limbaugh was requested to 
relieve petitioner in order that petitioner might go to the 
restroom. On return from his relief, Glen Limbaugh al­
legedly used abusive and derogatory language toward peti­

Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive
Belief Pending Appeal



4

tioner. Petitioner reported this matter to one of the super­
visors of the Company. Because of this incident, Mr. 
Limbaugh was suspended on the date of the alleged incident. 
Four days later, on September 13, 1967 petitioner was 
suspended without pay for a period of two weeks by the 
Company for allegedly instigating the incident of September 
13, 1966.

7. On September 15, 1966 petitioner filed a charge of 
racial discrimination against the Company with EEOC. By 
letter dated May 29, 1967, EEOC advised petitioner that 
after an investigation of his September 13 charge, EEOC 
had determined that his charge did not constitute a viola­
tion of Title VII of the Civil Bights Act of 1964 and that 
on May 22 the charge had been dismissed. The letter from 
EEOC advised that if petitioner had, or obtained, additional 
information on the charges of discrimination, EEOC would 
reconsider its action. (A copy of this letter is attached as 
“Exhibit A ” .)

8. By letter dated July 13, 1967, petitioner wrote EEOC 
stating his objections to the findings of the Commission and 
requested further investigation of the number of charges 
of racial discrimination which Negro employees of the 
Company had filed with the Commission. In his letter of 
July 13 to the Commission, petitioner stated, inter alia, 
“ that the Company had openly defied the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 and that the Chief Executive of the Company had 
stated more than once that seventy-five percent of the 
Negro employees of the Company would be eliminated.” 
The letter further stated that Negro employees of the Com­
pany, having repeatedly sought the assistance of EEOC,

Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive
Belief Pending Appeal



5

were of the belief that the “ Company was receiving some 
type of cover-np protection for its unfair employment prac­
tices” and that somehow they believed that “ somebody had 
gotten to Mr. Holliway who investigated the case.” (A 
copy of this letter is attached as “ Exhibit B.” )

9. On September 5, 1967 petitioner was permanently dis­
charged after eighteen years as an employee with the Com­
pany. Petitioner was discharged orally by Mr. P. H. Coup­
land, Vice President and "Work Manager of the Company 
who said that petitioner was being discharged because of 
false, malicious and libelous statements against the Com­
pany made in petitioner’s letter to EEOC of July 13, 1967. 
Prior to his discharge, petitioner had been the Chairman of 
the Auxiliary Board of the Company, which consisted solely 
of Negro employees.

10. The allegations made in petitioner’s July 13th letter 
to EEOC were part of the continuing efforts by petitioner 
to seek relief under Title V II from the Company’s racially 
discriminatory employment policies and practices, which 
policies and practices were challenged in the complaint filed 
in this Court on May 13, 1966.

11. An order reinstating petitioner as an employee of 
the Company is necessary to preserve the status quo of the 
parties to this action until the appeal to the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is decided.

12. The appeal in this case involves the question of 
whether conciliation by EEOC is a jurisdictional prerequi­
site to filing suit in federal court after EEOC had advised 
the party of his right to bring suit in the federal court,

Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive
Belief Pending Appeal



6

notwithstanding that EEOC might not have attempted con­
ciliation prior to the forwarding of such letter to a party.

The decisions of other courts passing upon the issue in­
volved in the appeal of this case are uniformly contrary to 
the decision under appeal. Everson v. Northwest Airlines, 
Inc., 268 F.Supp. 29 (E.D. Ya. 1967); Quarles v. Philip 
Morris, Inc., 65 L.R.R.M. 2059 (E.D. Va. 1967); Moody v. 
Albemarle Paper Company, C.A. No. 2154 (E.D. N.C. July 
6, 1967); Mondy and Hill v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., Civ. 
Nos. 66-242 and 67-286 (E.D. La. July 26, 1967).

13. Unless petitioner is reinstated as an employee of 
the Company, plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury in the 
loss of wages, seniority benefits and the opportunity to 
exercise the authority and responsibility attendant to his 
former position as Chairman of the Auxiliary Board. The 
Auxiliary Board is the only effective vehicle by which Negro 
employees of the Company can attempt to seek a relief 
albeit token from the racially-discriminatory employment 
practices charged before EEOC and challenged in this 
action. There is no union to represent the interest of Negro 
employees of the Company. An order requiring the Com­
pany to reinstate petitioner as an employee until a determi­
nation of this matter on appeal is made would not in any 
way interfere with the efficient operation of the Company.

W herefore, petitioner prays that this Court will:

1. Issue an order setting a date for the hearing of this 
motion at the earliest practicable date;

2. After hearing this motion, issue an order enjoining 
the Company, its agents, servants, employees and all per­

Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive
Belief Pending Appeal



7

sons in active concert or participation with it from con­
tinuing to enforce or give effect, directly or indirectly, to 
the discharge of petitioner as an employee of the Company; 
refusing to reinstate petitioner immediately as an employee 
of the Company with all rights and privileges attendant 
thereto; and taking any disciplinary or retaliatory action 
of any kind against petitioner because he opposed any 
practices made unlawful by Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 or because he made charges, testified, assisted 
or participated in any manner in an investigation proceed­
ing or hearing under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964.

This 15th day of September, 1967.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  O scar W . A dams

Oscar W . A dams

1630 Fourth Avenue North 
Birmingham, Alabama

J ack  Greenberg 
L eroy D. Clark  
R obert B elton

10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Motion of Petitioner Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive
Relief Pending Appeal



8

Exhibit “ A”  Annexed to Foregoing Motion 
(Letter dated May 29 , 1967)

[E m blem ]

E qual E mploym ent  O pportunity  Commission  
W ashington , D.C. 20506

M ay 29, 1967
IN REPLY REFER TO:
File No. 6-9-7604 
(No. 6-10-171)

Mr. Peter J. Wrenn 
521 10th Avenue, West 
Birmingham, Alabama

Dear Mr. Wrenn:

We have investigated and reviewed your allegation of 
an unlawful employment practice engaged in by American 
Cast Iron Pipe Company, Birmingham, Alabama on Sep­
tember 13, 1966.

Based upon reports of our investigators and information 
supplied by American Cast Iron Pipe Company, the Com­
mission has determined that the facts upon which your 
complaint is based do not constitute a violation of Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission, 
therefore, on May 22, 1967, dismissed your charge.

If you have or obtain additional information concerning 
your charge, the Commission may upon receipt of such 
information, reconsider its action, as provided in Section 
1601.19 of the Procedural Regulations of the Commission.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  E ric W. S pringer 
Eric W. Springer 
Director of Compliance

Enclosure



9

Committee For Equal 
Job Opportunity 
Post Office Box 2241 
Birmingham, Ala. 35204 
July 13, 1967

Mr. Stephens Shulman, Chairman
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Washington, D. C. 20506

Dear Sir:

With reference to File Number 6-9-7604 (No. 6-10-171), 
I am in receipt of the Document Entitled “ Commission’s 
Decision” . It is one of the most incredible decisions we 
have ever read. It places the whole program in the light 
of question. We have gone over the issue more than once 
and we cannot help but to conclude that it was bias on 
your part.

In the first place you have listed two separate File 
Numbers which are charges of a different nature and 
time. How you got them together is something we would 
like to know. We are lead to believe you are trying to 
make a mountain “a mole hill” . This may be possible 
but not in this world. Our Employer has openly defied 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Chief Executive has 
more than once stated, seventy-five (75%) per cent of 
the Negro Employees would be eliminated. This state­
ment is substantiated in the company’s recent employ­
ment practice, which is most prevalent in hiring, up­
grading and promotion. Having informed you more than 
once of the above mentioned statement we cannot help 
but to believe the company is receiving some type of 
cover-up protection for its unfair employment practices.

Exhibit “ B”  Annexed to Foregoing M otion

(Letter dated July 13, 1967)



10

The second factor which makes your decision most er­
roneous is the fact that neither of the three witnesses 
heard anything said by me (Peter J. Wrenn) or Gleen 
Limbough that night or any other night. Enclosed you 
will find an outline of the # 1  Mono-Cast Pipe Plant. The 
distances between the witnesses and the place of the alleged 
incident is indicated. Your decision was so far removed, 
intentionally or otherwise, from the real issue we thought 
it would be enlightening in your effort of reconsideration 
to have some Graphical Illustration at your disposal.

In summary, we believe somebody, some how got to 
Mr. Holliway, who investigated the case. We don’t know 
what was done or offered him, but we do know it had 
to have been something, otherwise, your decision would 
not have been so far off base. Along this line, we had 
similar experiences with Dr. Hugh Brimm. This sort of 
thing makes it very difficult and discouraging for us. We 
have asked you more than once for concrete directioning 
in our effort.

Very truly yours,

/ s /  P eter J. W renn

Peter J. Wrenn, Chairman 
Committee for Equal Job Opportunity 

and
Auxiliary Board of American Cast 
Iron Pipe Company

c.c. The President
The White House 
Washington, D. C.

P.S. Mr. Gleen Limbough is no longer with the Company 
because of his involvement in a similar, but much 
more serious incident. Save a thief from the gallow 
and he will cut your throat.

Exhibit “B” Annexed to Foregoing Motion



11

Affidavit o f  Peter J. Wrenn 

(Filed September 18, 1967)

Before me Oscar W. Adams, Jr., a Notary Public duly 
commissioned and qualified in Birmingham, Alabama, a 
person came and appeared, Peter J. Wrenn who, after 
being first duly sworn did depose and say:

That on Friday, September 9, 1966, I asked my Leader- 
man for relief from my job at American Cast Iron Pipe 
Company in order to go to the restroom; that my foreman 
sent Glenn Limbaugh, a white employee, as my relief. On 
my return from relief Glenn Limbaugh stated to me, “ I 
told you to stay twenty goddamn minutes.” He was waving 
a hammer in a menacing fashion. I  advised Mr. Pratt 
Busby, an official of the Company, of this indicident and 
Mr. Busby suspended Mr. Limbaugh from work on the 
same day.

On the Monday, September 12, 1966, following this inci­
dent, I  was meeting with the Auxiliary Board, of which I 
am chairman, and during the course of this meeting I was 
advised that Mr. Coupland, Vice President and Work Man­
ager wanted me to come to his office. When I went to Mr. 
Coupland’s office, Mr. George Harriston, Superintendent 
of the Mono-cast Department was present. Mr. Harriston 
advised me that he had received information from other 
employees that I had provoked the incident involving Mr. 
Limbaugh on the night of September 9, 1966, which I im­
mediately denied. Four days later, on Tuesday, September 
13,1966,1 went to the Company at approximately 1 :00 p.m., 
to do several chores in connection with my position as 
Chairman of the Auxiliary Board. Shortly thereafter, I 
began my job and an employee came to relieve me and ad­
vised me that Mr. Harriston wanted to see me. I went to



12

Affidavit of Peter J. Wrenn

Mr. Harriston’s office, at which time he advised me that he 
was suspending me because the Company had three wit­
nesses who stated that I had provoked Mr. Limbaugh some 
time in the past which precipitated the September 9, 1966 
incident. On September 14, 1966 the Disciplinary Commit­
tee met to consider what disciplinary action, if any, should 
be taken against me but could not reach a decision; thus 
Management had a responsibility of making some decision. 
On Thursday, September 15, 1966, I was informed by Man­
agement that I would be suspended for a period of two 
weeks, without pay, and that the same decision had been 
made with respect to Mr. Limbaugh.

Immediately after my suspension on Tuesday, September 
13, 1966, I called the Equal Employment Opportunity Com­
mission in Washington, D. C. and spoke with Mr. Blum- 
rosen, Chief of Conciliations, about the incident. Mr. 
Blumrosen advised me that a Mr. Lawrence, also an official 
of EEOC, was at the United States Post Office in Birming­
ham investigating another Title V II matter and that I 
should contact Mr. Lawrence. I discussed this matter with 
Mr. Lawrence on September 15, 1966 and filed with him a 
charge of employment discrimination.

On or about October 20,1966, more than 200 charge forms 
of employment discrimination because of race were filed 
against the Company with EEOC; a copy of the charge I 
filed is attached to this affidavit as “Exhibit 1.” On May 
29,1967,1 received a letter from Mr. Eric Springer, Director 
of Compliance of EEOC, advising that an investigation had 
been made of the charge filed on September 13, 1966, and 
that an investigation of the charge disclosed that the allega­
tions in the “charge did not constitute a violation of Title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” Mr. Springer’s letter 
also advised that if I had additional information concerning



13

Affidavit of Peter J. Wrenn

the charges that were filed, the Commission upon receipt 
of such information would reconsider its action.

Pursuant to Mr. Springer’s letter of May 29, 1967, I 
wrote Mr. Stephen Shulman, Chairman of EEOC, express­
ing my objections to the Commission’s decision and stating 
other and additional facts’ which would hear on my allega­
tions made in all of the charges, including the charge of 
July 13,1967 concerning the racially-discriminatory employ­
ment practices of the Company. On August 9, 1967 I re­
ceived a letter of acknowledgement of my letter of July 13, 
1967 requesting reconsideration from Mr. Eric Springer. 
(A  copy is attached as “Exhibit 2” .)

On September 5, 1967 I was discharged as an employee 
of American Cast Iron Pipe Company by Mr. F. H. Coup­
land, Vice President and Work Manager of the Company. 
The reason he gave for my discharge was that it was due 
to false, malicious and libelous statements made against 
the Company in my letter of July 13, 1967 to EEOC.

I declare that I have read the above and foregoing “Mo­
tion for Injunctive Belief Pending Appeal,” and that the 
same has been read and explained to me and that the alle­
gations of fact therein contained are true and correct to 
the best of my knowledge, remembrance, information and 
belief.

/ s /  P eter J. W renn



14

Exhibit “ 1”  Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit 
(Charge of Discrimination)

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

This form is to be used only to file a charge of 
discrimination based on R ace, C olor, R eligion ,
S ex, or National Origin .

If you have a complaint, fill in this form and mail it 
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 
Regional Office in your area as soon as possible. It must 
be mailed within 90 days after the discriminatory act 
took place. (See addresses on back page)

Case File No..........................

(P lease P rint  or T y pe )
205

1. Your Name: Peter J. Wrenn
Street Address: 521-10th Avenue West
City: Birmingham
State: Alabama
Zip Code: 35204
Phone Number: 322-6884

2. W as the D iscrimination  B ecause o e : 
(Please check one)

Race or Color jx]
Religious Creed Q  
National Origin | |
Sex Q



15

3. Who discriminated against you? Give the name and 
address of the employer, labor organization, employ­
ment agency and/or apprenticeship committee. If more 
than one, list all.

Name: American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
Street Address: 2930—16th Street North 
City: Birmingham 
State: Alabama 
Zip Code: ...............
a x d  (other parties if any) ................................................

4. Have you filed this charge with a state or local govern­
ment agency? Yes Q  No fx|

5. If your charge is against a company or a union, how 
many employees or members? Number: 2,400
Do not know Q

6. The most recent date on which this discrimination 
took place: Month 10 Day 20 Year 66

7. Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

1. Passed over for promotion for which I am qualified.
2. Paid less than others for capable work.
3. Placed in Segregated Seniority line.
4. Left out of Training Program.
5. Segregated Locker Booms.
6. Laid Off without just cause.

Remarks:

I have been incredibly intimidated by management. 
I have been told I am the cause of the Test insti­
tuted in 1964, which the E.E.O.C. ruled unfair;

Exhibit “1” Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit



16

Case File No. 5-10-759A. In addition, because of 
my complaint, I will be the cause of the elimination 
of Seventy-five (75%) per cent of the Negro Em­
ployees.

8. I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge 
and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, in­
formation and belief.

Date ......................

Exhibit “1” Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit

(Sign your name)

Subscribed and sworn to before me this ....... .
day o f .................. , 196.... .



17

[E m b le m ]

E qual E m ploym en t  Opportu n ity  Commission  
W ashington , D.C. 20506

August 9, 1967
IN  R E PL Y  REFER T O :

File No. 6-9-7604 
(No. 6-10-171)

Mr. Peter J. Wrenn 
Chairman, Committee for 
Equal Job Opportunity 
Post Office Box 2241 
Birmingham, Alabama 35204

Dear Mr. Wrenn:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 13, 
1967, requesting reconsideration of the Commission’s De­
cision of May 22, 1967, in your case against American Cast 
Iron Pipe Company, file number as above.

The additional information you have provided will be re­
viewed and given careful consideration by the Commission. 
Kindly send a copy of your request and the document 
supplied to the respondent company. We shall advise the 
company of your request for reconsideration.

Upon receipt of all additional information, and upon com­
pletion of the Commission’s review of all facts presented, 
all parties will be notified of the Commission’s action in 
this matter at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  E ric W. S pringer 
Eric W. Springer 
Director of Compliance

Exhibit “ 2 ”  Annexed to Foregoing Affidavit

(Letter dated August 9, 1967)



18

Motion for Disposition of Motion for 
Relief Pending Appeal

(Filed November 28, 1967)

Plaintiffs hereby move this Court to decide plaintiffs’ 
Motion for Injunctive Relief Pending Appeal by (1) grant­
ing such motion, (2) denying such motion, or (3) ordering 
an evidentiary hearing on such motion, based on the 
following:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief Pending Ap­
peal was filed on September 15, 1967. By such motion, 
plaintiffs prayed for an order (a) setting a date for a hear­
ing “at the earliest practicable date” and (b) after the hear­
ing, granting the injunctive relief prayed for.

2. The Court has not made any disposition of plaintiffs’ 
motion.

3. A proposed order for each alternative disposition of 
plaintiffs’ Motion is annexed hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  Oscar W . A dams, J r .
Oscar W . A dams

1630 Fourth Avenue North 
Birmingham, Alabama

J ack  Greenberg

L eroy D. Clark

R obert B elton

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Dated: November 27th, 1967



19

Order

(Filed November 28, 1967)

IN  T H E

U nited  S tates D istrict C ourt 

for the

N orthern  D istrict of A labama 

S outhern  D ivision 

C.A. No. 66-315

R u sh  P ettw ay , P eter J. W r e n n , et al.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

A m erican  Cast I ron P ipe Com pan y , a corp ora tion ,

Defendant,

U nited  S tates

E qual E m ploym en t  Opportu n ity  C om m ission ,

Intervenor.

Upon plaintiffs’ Motion for Injunctive Relief Pending 
Appeal filed September 15, 1967, the affidavit of Peter J. 
Wrenn in support thereof, and the Exhibits thereto, and the 
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, 
and without a hearing thereon, it is hereby

O rdered, that an evidentiary hearing on said motion take 
place on December 18th, 1967, at 10 o’clock A. M.

Done this the 28th day of November, 1967.

S eybourn  H . L y n n e  
Judge



20

(Filed December 15, 1967)

Comes American Cast Iron Pipe Company, defendant in 
the above-styled cause, and moves the Court to dismiss the 
motion heretofore filed in this cause by petitioner, Peter
J. Wrenn, for injunctive relief pending appeal, and as 
grounds of this motion assigns the following separately 
and severally:

1. Said motion for injunctive relief seeks to add to the 
above-styled suit an issue which is wholly separate and 
independent of any of the issues involved in this suit.

2. Said motion for injunctive relief seeks to add wholly 
new and independent issues in this suit which this Court 
has already determined and is without jurisdiction to enter­
tain because of the failure of the Equal Employment Op­
portunity Commission to undertake any conciliation efforts 
with this defendant prior to the institution of this suit by 
the plaintiffs named in the complaint.

3. The relief sought by movant, Peter J. Wrenn, is un­
necessary to preserve the status quo in this suit for that this 
suit was originally brought by four named plaintiffs for 
themselves and as a group action on behalf of others simi­
larly situated, and the prosecution of the appeal taken from 
this Court’s judgment in this suit will in no way be ham­
pered by the denial of the injunctive relief sought by said 
movant.

4. The motion of movant and movant’s affidavit offered 
in support thereof affirmatively reveal that the matter com­

Motion o f Defendant to Dismiss M otion o f
Peter J. W renn for Injunctive R elief



21

plained of in movant’s motion, namely, an alleged discrimi­
natory discharge of movant from employment by defendant, 
is a matter which is cognizable before the Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission and not a matter for the 
courts until the procedures specified in Title V II of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been fully pursued by a party 
making a charge such as is made herein in movant’s motion.

5. This defendant avers that said movant, Peter J. 
Wrenn, has heretofore on September 7, 1967, filed a charge 
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission al­
leging against this defendant an employment discrimina­
tion in violation of Title V II of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 predicated on the same matter, namely, the discharge 
of movant, Peter J. Wrenn, from his employment by de­
fendant, as is made the basis of said movant’s motion for 
temporary relief herein, a copy of said charge being served 
on defendant on September 22, 1967, a copy of defendant’s 
receipt and said charge being attached to this motion as 
Exhibit “A ” and made a part hereof; that following the 
service of said charge on the defendant, a representative 
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investi­
gated the same and, according to information furnished 
this defendant, has made a report of said investigation to 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Wash­
ington, D.C., and this defendant further avers that said 
Commission has not yet made any determination on the 
aforesaid charge and therefore this Court is without juris­
diction over the matter alleged in movant’s motion.

6. Defendant adopts the statements of fact alleged in the 
foregoing Ground 5 and further avers that said movant in

Motion of Defendant to Dismiss Motion of
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief



22

filing said written charge with the Equal Employment Op­
portunity Commission before which the same is still pend­
ing undetermined, elected to pursue that remedy and is 
estopped or barred from seeking similar relief in this 
Court.

7. Defendant adopts the statements of fact alleged in 
the foregoing Ground 5 and avers that said movant’s motion 
for injunctive relief herein is premature.

Respectfully submitted,

/ s /  Sam uel  H . B urr 
Samuel H. Burr

/ s /  J. R. F orman , J r .
J. R. Forman, Jr.

1130 Bank for Savings Bldg. 
Birmingham, Ala.

Attorneys for Defendant 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company

Motion of Defendant to Dismiss Motion of
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief



23

Exhibit “ A”  Annexed to Foregoing Motion 

(Receipt for Service of Charge)

RECEIPT FOR SERVICE OF CHARGE 

Case N o. 7068-9-355E

P eter J . W r e n n ,

vs.

A merican  Cast I ron P ipe C o.

This will certify service of copies of the O ne (1) attached 
charge alleging employment discrimination in violation of 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Served on Friday, September 22, 1967, by Wesley N. Harry, 
J.D., for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
at 2930-16th Street North, Birmingham, Alabama.

Receipt acknowledged by:

/ s /  F. H. Coupland

Vice Pres. & Works Manager



24

CHAEGE OF DISCEIMINATION

(Under Title VII of the Civil Eights Act of 1964)

This form is to be used only to tile a charge of 
discrimination based on E ace, Colob, E eligion , 
S ex, or N ational Origin .

M ail To :
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
1800 G Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20506

Case File No. 
6-9-7604 
6-10-171 
7068-9-355E

(please print or type)

1. Your Name: Peter J. Wrenn
Street Address: 521—10th Avenue, West
City: Birmingham
State: Alabama
Zip Code: 35204
Phone Number: 322-6884

2. W as the D iscrimination  B ecause o e :

Exhibit “A” Annexed to Foregoing Motion

(please check one)

Eace or Color
Eeligious Creed □
National Origin □
Sex □
Specify: Negro



25

3. Who discriminated against you? Give the name and 
address of the employer, labor organization, employ­
ment agency and/or apprenticeship committee. If more 
than one, list all.

Name: American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
Street Address: 2930—16th Street, North 
City: Birmingham 
State: Alabama 
Zip Code ................
a m  (other parties if any) ............ ......................................

4. Have you filed this charge with a state or local govern­
ment agency? Q  Yes jxj No

5. I f  your charge is against a company or a union, how 
many employees: Number 2,500 Q  Do Not Know

6. The most recent date on which this discrimination took 
place: Month: September Day: 5 Year: 1967

7. Explain what unfair thing was done to you:

On September 5,1967,1 was discharged as an employee 
of the American Cast Iron Pipe Company. I had been 
employed by the American Cast Iron Pipe Company for 
eighteen consecutive years at that time.

I was Chairman of the Auxiliary Board of the Ameri­
can Cast Iron Pipe Company, and am Chairman of the 
Committee for Equal Job Opportunity at the company. 
I was instrumental in filing charges of racial discrimina­
tion relating to job opportunities at American Cast Iron 
Pipe Company with the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, which charges were made the basis of a

Exhibit “A ” Annexed to Foregoing Motion



26

suit called Pettway vs. American Cast Iron Pipe 
Company.

I have filed other charges with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission since the filing of the Pettway 
case. As yet the case has not been brought to trial on 
the merits.

On July 7,1967,1 wrote a letter to the Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission, a copy of which is at­
tached. I was discharged orally by Mr. F. H. Coupland, 
Vice President and Work Manager of the American Cast 
Iron Pipe Company, on September 5, 1967, and he said 
that I was being discharged because of false, malicious 
and libelous statements against the company in the letter 
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
dated July 7, 1967.

Any statements I made in this letter against the com­
pany or the company officials are the subject of charges 
made previously to the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission and are the basis of the suit styled Pettway 
vs. American Cast Iron Pipe Company. These conten­
tions made in the case of Pettway have not been re­
solved, and therefore, I believe that the company has 
violated rights protected to me by Title VII of the Civil 
Eights Act of 1964, when it fires me for charges made 
the basis of Title VII litigation. Any other statements 
made in my letter are not libelous.

If the statements made in my letter of July 13, 1967, 
are proven to be true in the Pettway case, then they 
would not be false, malicious or libelous. My discharge, 
therefore, is premature and if allowed to stand I will be 
irreparably damaged.

Exhibit “A” Annexed to Foregoing Motion



27

8. I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge 
and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, in­
formation and belief.

Date: 9/7/67

/ s /  P eter J . W renn

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of 
September, 1967.

/ s /  O scar W . A dams, J r .
Notary Public

Exhibit “A ” Annexed to Foregoing Motion



28

Transcript of Proceedings

Birmingham, Alabama 
December 18, 1967

B efore:
H onorable S eybourn H . L y n n e , 

A ppearances:

Judge.

M r . O scar W. A dams, of the firm of Adams & Burg, 
Masonic Temple Building, Birmingham, Alabama, for 
the plaintiffs.
M essrs. J ames I. F orman and S am uel  H. B urr, of the 
firm of Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman, Burr & Murray, 
Bank for Savings Building, Birmingham, Alabama, 
for the defendants.

P roceedings

The Court: Gentlemen, this complaint has set forth a 
prayer for injunctive relief pending appeal in the case of 
Peter J. Wrenn versus American Cast Iron Pipe Com­
pany.

What says the plaintiff?
Mr. Adams: We are ready.
The Court: What says the defendant?
Mr. Forman: Ready. We would call to the Court’s at­

tention we have filed a motion to dismiss the motion for 
injunctive relief and set out therein grounds on which we 
believe the motion should be dismissed, the application for 
injunction. The memorandum has been filed in support 
of that motion to dismiss and very briefly I would point 
out to the Court the same matter has been made the basis



29

of a charge to the EEOC, September 7, 1967, and there 
has been no decision on that charge.

The Court: Well, that has given me some concern. I 
haven’t had time to read the memorandum but it has given 
me some concern as to whether or not the jurisdiction of 
this Court in this case has been ousted by the appeal.

So far as the charge itself before the Commission is con­
cerned, I don’t think that would interfere with the juris­
diction of the Court to hear this matter but my judgment 
is what we ought to do is go ahead and reserve ruling on 
the question of jurisdiction and hear the evidence because 
if I should decide I don’t have jurisdiction then the matter 
could go up to the Appellate Court and they could take it 
up on the basis of this evidence.

I am ready to proceed, Oscar.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Wrenn.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct

Me. P eter J. W ren n , called as a witness, being duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. State your name, please. A. Peter J. Wrenn.
Q. Where do you live, Mr. Wrenn? A. 521—10th Ave­

nue, West, Birmingham, Alabama.
Q. And how long have you lived at that address? A. 

Pour years approximately.
Q. Have you been an employee of American Cast Iron 

Pipe Company? A. Yes.
Q. How long have you been an employee up until your 

discharge? A. To be exact let me get it.
Q. Just roughly how long? A. From the fifth month, 

26th day, 1950, to September 5, 1967.
Q. Approximately 17 years? A. Yes, sir.



30

Q. And you were discharged by the American Cast Iron 
Pipe Company September 5, 1967? A. Yes, sir.

Q. At the time of your discharge did you hold any posi­
tions other than employee with the company? A. I was 
Chairman of the Auxiliary Board, a Board of Represen­
tatives for Negro Employees.

Q. Will you tell the Court just what that Board is? A. 
Well, the Negro Auxiliary Board is a Board of Represen­
tatives for the Negro employees consisting of twelve em­
ployees, and this Board is divided up into three subdivi­
sions referred to as committees. We have the Living and 
Working Conditions Committee and have an Investigating 
Committee and we have the Y.M.C.A. Committee. The 
Chairman is ex-officio of each of these committees.

Q. Will you tell the Court how the members of this Aux­
iliary Board are elected? A. The members of the Auxil­
iary Board are elected annually to the board. Each mem­
ber is to serve two years but only elects six each year.

Q. Are the elections of the members, Mr. Wrenn, from 
the general employees at Acipco? A. Yes, among the Ne­
gro employees and each district has a man to represent 
them. It is divided up into districts.

Q. In other words, the voting comes once a year on six 
persons for the Auxiliary Board? A. Correct, sir.

Q. Is that limited to race? A. Yes, sir.
Q. On the Auxiliary Board the members are limited to 

the Negro employees? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I understand you are Chairman of the Auxiliary 

Board? A. Correct, sir.
Q. How long have you been Chairman up until your 

discharge? A. I served a term of two years as member 
of the Board and I was serving my second term when I 
was discharged.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



31

Q. How long had you been on your second term? A. 
From the election in April until the time I was discharged 
February 5.

Q. April, 1967? A. Yes, sir, April 23, I think when we 
elected officers for the Auxiliary Board.

Q. This year? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Wrenn, how were you elected to this Chairman­

ship of the Auxiliary Board? A. The employees all are 
eligible for the Board provided he has had six months 
service with the company and out of the highest number 
—the two people receiving the highest number of votes 
are in a runoff and the man receiving the highest number 
out of that runoff is elected to the Board and in turn the 
Board of twelve men elect the Chairman.

Q. How do they elect the Chairman? A. By majority 
vote.

Q. Of the twelve? A. That’s right.
Q. Is there a Chairman of the Auxiliary Board at the 

present time? A. The Vice-Chairman is serving in my 
stead.

Q. Do you know whether or not he has been elected per­
manent Chairman? A. I was told he has not.

Q. Is there a comparable Board among the white em­
ployees of the company? A. There is a white Board of 
Operatives.

Q. How is that composed? A. It is elected basically the 
same as the Negro Auxiliary Board. They elect their 
Chairman of that Board like I was.

Q. Are there twelve men on that Board? A. Twelve 
white men.

Q. Are they elected from the same districts as the Ne­
groes on the Auxiliary Board? A. Yes, sir.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



32

Q. Do they also have six elected each year? A. Yes, six 
elected each year.

Q. Is this Board restricted to white persons? A. White 
only.

Q. I believe in the organizational structure of Acipco 
you have brought out there were these two Boards. Is 
there also a Board of Trustees? A. Correct.

Q. Will you tell the Court how this Board of Trustees 
is composed? A. The Board of Trustees is composed of 
members from the Board of Operatives, white Board of 
Operatives and the Executive Board of Management who 
presides over the Eagan Trust.

Q. You mentioned another Board, the Board of Opera­
tives.

Mr. Forman: I want to object to this as being 
wholly irrelevant.

Mr. Adams: Judge, I would like to state that pur­
pose is to show that Peter Wrenn for some years 
was a person in official position at Acipco, being 
Chairman of the Auxiliary Board, which is the Ne­
gro Board, and that this is the only official Board 
the Negroes have in order to express their griev­
ances with the company. He was elected to such 
Board by a vote of the Negro personnel at Acipco, 
and that if he was allowed to be discharged from 
Acipco, that the Negroes, as far as better working 
conditions, will suffer and that the whole purpose 
for which this lawsuit has been brought here will 
be—will suffer, and that the status quo will be upset 
by his being discharged and taken out of Acipco. 
The only effective representation the Negro does 
have at Acipco is the Auxiliary Board and he is, 
and I believe the testimony will bring out, the leader

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



33

of the Negro people at Acipco, therefore, there 
would be irreparable damage in this case.

The Court: Well, I think the narrow issue pre­
sented by the petition in this case now is whether 
or not the petitioner was discharged because of fil­
ing a complaint in violation of the Act. I think it is 
Section 406—

Mr. Forman: 407(a).
The Court: That is the narrow issue.
Mr. Adams: Your Honor, I think the testimony 

we are trying to elicit from Mr. Wrenn is that the 
complaint, of course, which he filed is a complaint 
that Negroes are discriminated against in the oper­
ation of the company in the official capacity.

The Court: I will let you show that as back­
ground evidence but I am not concerned myself with 
the broad issues because I have held I don’t have 
jurisdiction of that.

Q. Mr. Wrenn, I believe you stated that there was a 
Board of Operatives, is that correct? A. Correct.

Q. You stated how it was elected. Will you also state 
whether or not there is a Board of Management at Acipco? 
A. Correct, sir.

Q. How is the Board of Management composed? A. The 
Board of Management at the present is composed of the 
president of the company, Mr. Kenneth Daniel, the vice- 
president and works manager, Mr. F. H. Copeland, and 
the man in charge of research and development and Mr. 
Foshee, secretary-treasurer, and there are five of them on 
there at the present time.

Mr. Forman: We would like to let the record 
show that Mr. Carl Farlow is the man he mentioned

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



34

by title and the fifth man is Mr. Jack MacKay, in 
charge of sales.

Q. All of these gentlemen are white, is that correct? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Is there also a Board of Directors at Acipco? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Do you know how the Board of Directors are gov­
erned at Acipco? A. No, sir, I am not too sure of that. 
I do know the president of the company, who is Mr. Ken­
neth Daniels, also presides as Chairman of the Board of 
Directors.

Q. Are they all white? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Are there any other Boards you know of at Acipco? 

A. I made mention of the Board of Trustees, consisting of 
white members from the white Board of Operatives and 
the Board of Management or the white Board of Execu­
tives.

Q. Is there a disciplinary committee at Acipco? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. And this Disciplinary Committee is composed of how 
many men? A. Composed of the Works Manager, Mr. 
F. H. Copeland, and his assistant, Mr. Sam Carter; the 
Director of Personnel, Mr. J. C. King, who is Chairman 
of this committee, and Mr. S. P. Phelps, and members of 
the white Board of Operatives.

Since the EEOC has intervened in our effort to get 
equal employment opportunity of Acipco upon the recom­
mendations of their agents, we as members of the Negro 
Auxiliary Board have been permitted or privileged to 
serve on the Disciplinary Committee. It was stated that 
the Chairman of the Auxiliary Board and the Chairman 
of the Living and Working Conditions Committee would

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



35

be the two members from the Negro Auxiliary Board priv­
ileged to serve on the Disciplinary Committee.

Q. How many men do you have—are there on the Dis­
ciplinary Committee? A. And I want to add the Depart­
ment Head concerned would be on the committee.

Q. How many Negroes on the committee? A. Two.
Q. Do you know who they are? A. As I stated, at the 

request of one of the agents from EEOC, who intervened 
in our behalf, we were privileged to serve and myself, the 
Chairman of the Auxiliary Board, was one and Mr. Leon­
ard Lewis, who is Chairman of the Living and Working 
Conditions Committee is serving.

Q. I believe you also are one of the plaintiffs in the 
suit filed in this court against Acipco which is on appeal? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many other plaintiffs? A. About five who 
signed the petition.

Q. Do you have a committee which is not within the 
scope of the official bodies of Acipco that you are the Chair­
man of? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is that committee? A. That is entitled the 
Committee for Equal Job Opportunity.

Q. When was that committee organized? A. Officially 
it was organized March 30, 1965, and in that general as­
sembly was a majority of the Negro employees of Acipco 
who met and did elect officers to work in their behalf for 
equal opportunity at Acipco.

Q. That committee is the same committee you said you 
were Chairman of when you wrote the letter to EEOC 
July 13, 1967? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you write such a letter to EEOC? A. Yes, sir, 
we did.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



36

Q. I will show you a copy of that letter addressed to 
Mr. Stephens Shulman, Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, dated July 13, 1967. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that a copy of the letter you wrote? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you state how that is signed? A. Peter J. 

Wrenn.
Q. And what else does it say, if anything? A. Commit­

tee for Equal Job Opportunity and Auxiliary Board of 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company.

Mr. Adams: We offer that as Plaintiff’s Exhibit
1.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1 marked for identification.)

Q. Now, I am going to direct your attention, Mr. Wrenn, 
back to July 9, 1966, in which you had difficulty at the 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company in which you have filed 
an affidavit with your motion in this ease.

Would you state to the Court exactly what occurred at 
Acipco September 9, 1967, between you and Mr. Glen Lim- 
baugh? A. I asked Mr. Pratt Busby, lead man, for relief 
to go to the toilet and he sent Glen Limbaugh, and he now 
lives in Tennessee, to relieve me, and when I returned from 
the relief Glen Limbaugh said to me, he told me—he used 
profanity and told me that he had told me to stay thirty 
minutes and he would bust my brains out with a hammer, 
and I went to Mr. Pratt Busby, who is the foreman, and 
told him about the incident and Mr. Busby told me to go 
on to work and he was going to talk to that boy because 
he wasn’t going to have that mess in his shift, and that 
he had talked to that boy more than one time and he mo­
tioned for Glen Limbaugh to go downstairs. In this par­
ticular area there is a basement like and about, I would

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



37

say, 35 or 45 minutes later, Mr. Pratt Busby returned 
to me and told me, be said, Peter, I will talk to you more, 
but I sent that boy home. He said I sent his butt home. 
He told him he wasn’t going to have that around here any 
more.

Q. After he sent Mr. Limbaugh home, did you have any 
other conversation with any officials concerning this inci­
dent? A. No, the only time I talked—immediately after 
that, that night after I got off, I asked Mr. Pratt Busby 
did he want to talk to me any and he said no.

Q. In your affidavit you did state on September 13th you 
went to the company and Mr. Hairston said he wanted to 
see you? A. Yes, we had a Board Meeting and I was 
told that Mr. Copeland wanted to see me in his office and 
when I arrived at Mr. Copeland’s office Mr. Hairston was 
there and Mr. Hairston said we want to talk to you about 
Glen Limbaugh’s case, and I said again, and he said yes, 
again. He told Mr. Copeland that he had found evidence 
and got signed statements that I had provoked Glen Lim­
baugh to saying what he did. Not that night but sometime 
in the past I had said things to Glen Limbaugh that made 
him so full and he could not take it no longer and it busted 
out on him. Mr. Copeland said to Mr. Hairston that was 
contrary to my statement and so I asked them what do 
you want me to do, start working, and they said no. I 
went to work the next day and I was called into Mr. Hair­
ston’s office again. This time he said he was turning my 
case over to the Disciplinary Committee and was sending 
me home.

Q. For how long? A. He didn’t state how long at that 
time.

Q. But was the case turned over to the Disciplinary 
Committee? A. Yes, sir.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



38

Q. And what was the result of that action? A. The Dis­
ciplinary Committee didn’t agree unanimously with—

Mr. Forman: Wait a minute, we object to any 
hearsay testimony. I don’t believe he was there.

The Court: Sustain the objection.

Q. Don’t testify to anything you don’t have actual per­
sonal knowledge of. A. Well, I was sent home as a result 
of this Disciplinary Committee and its action.

Q. They informed you of that fact? A. I was informed 
by the official—the Personnel Direct I would be disciplined 
for two weeks layoff.

Q. Who is that? A. Mr. J. C. King.
Q. Did he say that was the result of the Disciplinary 

Committee or somebody else? Who gave him that infor­
mation? A. That it was—the management had disciplined 
me.

Q. And not the Disciplinary Committee? A. No, the 
Board of Management, he said.

Q. Without pay? A. Without pay.
Q. Did you file any charges concerning this incident with 

the EEOC? A. I did.
Q. And what was the result of these charges? A. There 

was a “No Cause” finding in this particular case. I was 
told I didn’t present enough evidence to—

Q. Were you told you had a right to submit additional 
evidence? A. Correct.

Q. Did you attempt to submit any additional evidence? 
A. I submitted a graphic layout of the plant and'—to con­
tradict the statements Mr. Hairston had from employees 
saying they heard me that night say things to provoke 
Glen Limbaugh, I drew this graphic layout of the plant

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



39

to show to the Commission that it was impossible for those 
people who signed those affidavits to have heard anything 
I said that night or any other night or any other time at 
that distance from the scene and the particular incident.

Q. Mr. Wrenn, the letter we just showed you of July 
13, was that directed toward these same charges you had 
filed with the EEOC as a result of this incident with Glen 
Limbaugh? A. I was asking EEOC to reconsider the 
findings.

Q. In this letter there is a sentence that states “ The 
Chief Executive has more than once stated 75 percent of 
the Negro employees would be eliminated. This statement 
is substantiated in the company’s recent employment 
practice.”

That is in the letter? A. That is correct.
Q. Had you made that statement before in any other 

letter to EEOC or any government discriminatory prac­
tice commission? A. Yes, sir, more than once, back as 
far as 1964.

Q. Do you have a copy of a letter you wrote to EEOC 
or the President’s Committee on Employment Practice in 
which you made that statement? A. Yes, June 7, 1965.

Q. And that was addressed to whom? A. This was ad­
dressed to the President and a copy went to the President 
of the Equal Opportunity Committee.

Mr. Adams: I would like to offer this as Plain­
tiff’s Exhibits 2, Your Honor.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2 marked for identification.)

Q. Would you read the pertinent information that makes 
the same statement you made in the July 13 letter?

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



40

Mr. Forman: We would like to object to the form 
of the question, the “pertinent information.”

The Court: I will overrule.

A. “A member of Management stated emphatically 75 per­
cent of the colored employees would be eliminated because 
of a complaint filed with the President Committee for 
Equal Employment Opportunity. A vast effort went out 
to bring in a large number of white employees. Hence it is 
expected of management to have a large layoff in the very 
near future. As a result 75 percent of the colored 
employees will be eliminated as it was stated.”

Q. Do you have another letter? A. This was in 1963. 
(Indicating)

Q. Addressed to who? A. The President.
Q. Of the United States? A. Correct, and a copy to the 

President’s Committee.

Mr. Forman: Is there a date on that? I don’t 
believe there is a date on the letter.

Q. When was this letter written, Mr. Wrenn? A. The 
exact date is not on it, but the letter was actually written 
in November.

Q. What year? A. 1963.
Q. You know that to be a fact? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: If Your Honor please, this second 
sentence in this letter says “December 1963 and June 
1964 Dr. Hugh A. Brimm investigated my complaint,” 
so obviously this letter couldn’t have written in No­
vember, 1963, and made reference to a date in 
1964.

The Court: We will assume it is undated.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



41

Mr. Forman: If the Court please, we never have 
seen the letter before.

The Court: I understand.
Mr. Adams: Mark this letter.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 marked for identification.)

Q. You have any other communication with the Presi­
dent of the United States or the President’s Committee of 
Equal Employment Opportunity? A. That points to any 
particular statement?

Q. Yes. A. It may be but it is over further in the rec­
ord. On June 13, of course, that was the last one.

Q. Now, Mr. Wrenn, I believe in your affidavit filed here 
with the Court in this particular motion you stated you 
had more than 200 charge forms of employment discrimi­
nation because of race filed against the company with 
EEOC, and they occurred on or about October 20, 1966. 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you assist or have anything to do with the filing 
of these charges? A. I was Chairman and am still Chair­
man of the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee and 
we, at the suggestion of the EEOC, did get the employees 
to file the charges if they wanted something really done.

Q. In other words, you as Chairman, with your Commit­
tee, assisted in getting the charges filed? A. Correct.

Q. You stated to the Court when your committee was 
formed or before forming of the committee, was there any 
committee detailed with job discrimination which you par­
ticipated in at the American Cast Iron Pipe Company? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would you state what that was? A. Well, it was a 
group of fellows who wanted something done about this. 
We did approach the former president, Mr. S. D. Moxley,

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



42

with a proposal to revise this Board of Representatives 
and we didn’t get any answer from Mr. Moxley.

Q. When was that done? A. That was in 1964, the best 
of my knowledge.

Q. Who was on that committee? A. Well, about five of 
us then. Mr. Jordan, Mr. Marbury—I believe five of us 
got together and said we wanted something done and we 
made this proposal and 108 employees of the company 
signed statements to that effect and affidavits to propose 
to do something about that matter.

Q. When you said proposed to do something about rep­
resentatives for Negro employees, tell the Court what you 
mean by that statement. A. What I mean is we proposed 
that the company would kind of integrate the Boards.

Q. And you referred to what Boards? A. The white 
Board of Operatives and the Negro Auxiliary Board.

Q. And you presented such a proposal in writing? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. To who? A. Mr. Moxley and Mr. Daniel.
Q. Who was Mr. Moxley? A. The former president be­

fore Mr. Daniel.
Q. Do you have a written copy of that proposal? A. 

Yes, sir.
Q. Would you let us see it, please? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: If the Court please, we wTould object 
to this on the ground of relevancy.

The Court: Overrule.
Mr. Adams: We offer it.
Mr. Forman: We would like to have it identified 

by someone before it is offered.

Q. State what this is. A. This is a proposal we wrote 
to have the Boards integrated and as a result bring about

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



43

equal employment opportunity for all employees. We 
thought Negro employees could get just representation if 
it was integrated and we could serve on the Board of Di­
rectors and the Board of Trustees. As it stands now, a 
Negro can’t serve on the Board of Trustees.

Q. What year was that? A. That was in 1964.
Q. Was there any action taken on that? A. No, Mr. 

Moxley looked at it but he didn’t comment and Mr. Daniels 
said it was a good document but then his next response was 
“The Court decided it once and the Court will decide it 
again.”

Q. Is that the present President of Acipco? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As President of the Committee on Equal Opportunity, 

which is not connected with Acipco, did you do anything 
else to correct the inequities you claim exist at Acipco? 
A. As Chairman of the Auxiliary Board there was more 
action taken other than filing the complaints. My Chairman 
of the Living and Working Conditions Committee went 
around over the plant and made surveys of various jobs 
that employees had reported to us they felt were unfair 
and we looked at the jobs.

Q. When was that? A. That was when I first took office 
as Chairman of the Auxiliary Board. And we did that and 
after we made the survey we brought it back to the Board, 
the Negro Auxiliary Board and got its approval and then 
made recommendations to the Board of Management, the 
President in particular, that the situation be rectified in 
some manner and we proposed a change in the jobs and 
then we went further and asked them to have job descrip­
tions and a comparative job analysis on all jobs at Acipco.

Q. Did you get a response from the Board of Manage­
ment? A. Mr. Copeland called me down to his office and 
answered this letter that was really addressed to the presi­

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



44

dent of the company. At that meeting with Mr. Copeland 
Mr. Copeland told me if I went around the job cutting job 
rates and changing jobs like I proposed, me or him would 
have to leave there.

Q. Did you or your committee, Mr. Wrenn, file any— 
after the proposal you suggested, the one you addressed to 
Mr. Moxley, did you talk to Dr. Hugh Brimm, who is con­
nected with the President’s Committee of Equal Job Op­
portunity! A. Oh, yes, we talked to Dr. Brimm on more 
than once. I can recall vividly two occasions. Once we 
talked to Dr. Brimm and Mr. Copeland and Mr. Daniel 
and also Mr. Burr was present.

Q. When was that! A. I would have to go to the rec­
ord and tell.

Q. All right, let’s get that. A. I think it is in the ex­
hibit here where I was telling about the 75 percent.

Q. This is Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2. Would that refresh your 
recollection about when it was! A. Yes, this is it.

Q. Tell us if you can—you might look at it first. A. It 
was May 7, when this meeting was held.

Q. What year! A. 1965 with Mr. Hugh Brimm.
Q. Who was present! A. Mr. Daniels, Mr. Copeland, 

Mr. Burr, and this committee.
Q. Were the problems of discriminatory employment 

practices referred to at that meeting! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Would you give us the gist of what was said by Dr. 

Brimm to Mr. Daniel, Copeland, and yourself, and Mr. 
Burr! A. Well, Mr. Daniel said—told me I had been 
harassing him for two years. That was only the second 
year on the Board. He said for two years I had been 
harassing him. After that he and Mr. Burr went outside 
and talked a while and then he came back. What we were 
talking about was this testing policy the company adopted

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



45

and it was unfair to the older employees who were required 
to take a test when they had been doing the job for fifteen 
years and to be promoted had to take the test, and we 
talked about merit rating and asked for job descriptions. 
We felt if we could get job descriptions of the jobs that 
had been previously titled or identified with Negro em­
ployees, that we would receive higher rates. We felt that 
the ramming station by merit would out-rate a job in the 
foundry.

Q. Did Dr. Brimm—who is Dr. Brimm? A. Dr. Hugh 
Brimm at that particular time was an agent from the Pres­
ident’s Committee of Equal Employment Opportunity who 
came down to investigate the charges.

Q. Did he make any comment about what you referred 
to a minute ago in that meeting! A. Yes, sir, he told us 
that—asked us rather were we going to write to the Presi­
dent and tell him that he had sent a white biased so-and-so 
down here to investigate the charges and one of the mem­
bers asked if the company could fine us for those charges, 
and he said yes, you can go to jail or pay $1,000.00 fine for 
bringing these charges against the company.

Later on Mr. Copeland had a meeting with all the em­
ployees—didn’t have all of them at once but he would 
call a number of the colored employees down into the 
auditorium and he told them that Dr. Brimm said that 
everything was all right at Acipco and any charge that 
would be filed would have to be filed with Dr. Brimm and 
that Dr. Brimm told them that everything was all right.

Q. Immediately after that was your organization formed 
of the Negro employees at Acipco? A. That’s right, that 
is when this committee went into effect to try to get some­
thing done. We started filing charges directly to the Pres­

Peter J. Wrenn—Plaintiff— Direct



46

ident. As a result of that Mr. Wesley Todd investigated 
Dr. Brimm.

Q. This committee you referred to, was it formed im­
mediately after Dr. Brimm’s visit? A. Officially, yes, sir, 
that is when the employees met again and elected officers.

Q. When was this meeting of the employees? A. That 
was on March 30, 1965.

Q. When you formally got organized, is that right, 
March, 1965? A. Yes, I believe that is the time.

Q. You had a meeting of the Negro employees of Acipco 
outside of the company? A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many Negro employees did you have at that 
time? A. That auditorium was full and some standing 
on the outside that couldn’t get in.

Q. What auditorium? A. The 19th Street Branch of 
the Y.M.C.A.

Q. How many employees at that time did Acipco have? 
A. About 890.

Q. Do you know how many Negro employees came to the 
meeting in 1965? A. No, sir. 450 were on the inside.

Q. Have you met ever since that time? A. Yes, sir, 
periodically.

Q. How often are you talking about? A. The Commit­
tee meets on an average of every two weeks.

Q. How many general meetings? A. We have general 
meetings whenever something comes up that the employees 
want to know about concerning a case or how it is pro­
gressing and so forth.

Q. What would the average number of meetings be in a 
year or in six months? A. Every three months on an 
average.

Q. You have a meeting? A. Yes, sir.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



47

Q. Approximately how many Negro employees from 
Acipco attend the meetings? A. 250 or 300 on an average.

Q. Would you say your organization represents the 
Negro employees at Acipco? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you have any idea how many Negro employees 
support your organization financially? A. I would say 75 
percent of the Negroes support it financially.

Q. Mr. Wrenn, would you tell the Court whether or not 
you have any other employment since your discharge Sep­
tember 15? A. No, I have not got other employment since 
my discharge.

Q. What were you making at the time of your discharge? 
A. I was making $2.92 an hour.

Q. What were you making a week on an average? A. 
On the average my take-home pay was $178.00 or $180.00 
every two weeks.

Q. Every two weeks? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much are you receiving now in unemployment 

compensation? A. $42.00 a week.
Q. That figure you gave, that doesn’t include bonuses? 

A. No, sir.
Q. Does it include money you would get as Chairman of 

the Auxiliary Board? A. No, sir. Sometimes I am called 
out as Chairman to attend meetings, Disciplinary Com­
mittee meetings, Bating Committee meetings, et cetera, at 
which time I am paid.

Q. Were you paid extra for the work in connection with 
the Auxiliary Committee when you were Chairman? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. On what basis? A. Hourly basis.
Q. You don’t get time and a half, do you? A. No, sir.

Mr. Adams: I believe that’s all.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Direct



48

Cross Examination by Mr. Forman:

Q. The letter you wrote on July 13. 1967, was written by 
whom? Composed by whom? Who wrote it up? Who wrote 
the language in there? A. We got—every letter we sent 
we decided whether or not we should send it.

Q. Who is “we” ? A. The committee.
Q. Who are the members of the Committee? A. I can 

get their names here. Mr. David Jordan, Mr. Joseph Mar- 
bury, Mr. Luther Cooper, Mr. John Fillmore, Mr. Henry 
Goodgame, James Baskerville, Mr. Leonard Lewis, Mr. 
John Benefield, Mr. Henry Booker—did I name them all?

Q. I don’t know the identity of the committee.

Mr. Adams: That is right.

Q. Where were you when you discussed the contents of 
this letter in drawing it up? A. The 18th Street Branch 
of the Y.M.C.A.

Q. Who typed the letter? A. Our secretary.
Q. And who is that? A. Mrs. Walker.
Q. You state in this letter that we believe somebody got 

to Mr. Holliway. As a matter of fact, I think his name is 
Hollingsworth. A. I learned that afterwards.

Q. And you stated, “We don’t know what was done or 
offered him but we do know it had to have been some­
thing—”

What information did you have at the time you wrote 
this letter that anything had been offered to Mr. Hollings­
worth hy anybody? A. The only information we had con­
cerning Mr. Hollingsworth is that he was very—he thought 
we were doing a good job at Acipco in trying to get equal 
employment opportunities and that he was with us one 
hundred percent in our effort. Then when this report went

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



49

in to the contrary we thought he had been persuaded in 
some way to change his mind.

Q. And you had no concrete evidence of this at the time 
yon wrote this letter other than the decision from the Com­
mission? A. Other than his impression to us.

Q. Yon did get a copy of the decision, did you not, the 
finding of no— A. The “No Cause” finding.

Q. That’s right.

The Court: I believe it is Exhibit A to the com­
plaint in this case in the court file.

Mr. Forman: I would like to have this identified 
as Defendant’s Exhibit 1.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 1 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. This is the decision of the Commission dated May 22, 
1967. A. Yes, sir.

Q. After you received the letter from Mr. Springer at­
tached to your application for a temporary injunction dated 
May 29, 1967, in which he asked if you had any additional 
information you could submit to the Commission for con­
sideration, you then composed this letter of June 13, right? 
A. July 13.

Q. July 13? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you send a copy of that letter of July 13 to the 

company? A. No.
Q. You sent it to the President? A. One to the Presi­

dent and one to Mr. Stephen Shulman.
Q. And you mailed them the same day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you had discussed the contents of the letter with 

the men you have identified, the Committee? A. Correct.
Q. Did you discuss it with the Auxiliary Board? A.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



50

Only the members that are on the committee—who serve on 
the Committee for Equal Job Opportunity.

Q. Will you identify those for us? A. Myself and Mr. 
James Baskerville, Mr. Leonard Lewis, Mr. John Bene­
field, Mr. David Jordan, and Mr. Henry Goodgame.

Q. That is six? A. Correct.
Q. Now, the prior correspondence from the committee 

for Equal Job Opportunity had been signed by several mem­
bers on the committee, had it not? A. Correct.

Q. Why didn’t anybody sign this other than you on this 
one of July 13?

Mr. Adams: I object to that, I think that calls 
for a mental operation of the witness.

The Court: Sustain the objection.

Q. Was anybody else asked to sign it? Anybody else on 
the committee? A. No, that is not the way we conduct the 
business. We don’t ask members to sign it.

Q. Hadn’t prior letters been signed by other members? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How did that come about? A. If we have a letter, 
we discuss it and then we have the secretary type it up 
and—

Q. And whoever wants to signs it? A. Not that he wants 
to. He is a committeeman and he takes responsibility.

Q. But no one signed this July 13 letter other than your­
self? A. Yes, by the Chairman of the Auxiliary Board 
and the Chairman of the Equal Opportunity Committee.

Q. Who is Peter J. Wrenn? A. That’s right. Many 
letters sent to the President only the Chairman would sign.

Q. Coming back to the letter, you say in this letter the 
Chief Executive has more than once stated 75 percent of 
the Negro employees would be eliminated.

Peter J. Wrenn—Plaintiff—Cross



51

When was that said and where was it said? A. That is 
in one of the letters there to Mr.—Mr. Daniel at a meeting 
before the Auxiliary Board first made this statement.

Q. And what was the statement? A. That I had caused 
him to spend two weeks in Washington attending to a mess 
I had stirred up and that I was going to be the cause of 
75 percent of the Negro employees at Acipco being elimi­
nated.

Q. Was Mr. Copeland there? A. He was there.
Q. All right, let me remind you, isn’t it a fact in the 

discussion that Mr. Daniels had with you, the discussion 
turned around on the proposition that the white employees 
had been required to take tests? A. No, sir, that wasn’t 
mentioned.

Q. It wasn’t mentioned? How about job applicants? A. 
No, sir, the applicants didn’t come in that issue. We were 
talking about the opportunity at the plant of being up­
graded, the Negro.

Q. You say in reference to that he said 75 percent would 
be eliminated? A. That is what he said.

Q. Who else was present? A. The whole department.
Q. Do you recall what year that was? A. No, I would 

have to go back to that record and tell. I think it was—the 
exhibit is in 1964. That was my first year as Chairman, 
two years back.

Q. Do you recall what year it was? A. I think it was 
1964.

Q. Would it help you to have some exhibits? A. It is 
stated on there (indicating).

Q. You are talking about the letter you wrote back in— 
we are talking about the statement— A. You asked me 
about the statement Mr. Daniels made. This letter was in 
1963.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



52

Q. What letter do you have reference to? A. This one 
(indicating).

Q. You mean Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3, which is undated and 
you say that was written in 1963! A. I am saying the time 
referred to is 1963, but the time he made the statement was 
in 1964.

Q. Didn’t Mr. Daniels discuss with you that statement 
or that reference in the letter you have got in there, 
Exhibit No 2, in which you said that management said that 
75 percent of the Negro employees would he eliminated, 
didn’t he discuss that with you in his office right after he 
got notice of that being put in that letter? A. No, Mr. 
Daniel made this statement before the Board and said 
that he would talk to me later and shortly after that I was 
on the job and the foreman told me that the president 
wanted to see me and I said, the president? And he said, 
yes, Mr. Daniels wants to see you in his office and I went 
down to his office. He told me at that time that I had cost 
the company $40,000.00, but the discussion was not about 
the statement made primarily but it was about $25,000.00 
he wanted me to give to the Salvation Army which the 
Board voted by a majority vote not to give the Salvation 
Army $25,000.00.

Q. Let me come back to the thing I am asking you about.
Did you have a discussion about 75 percent—your allega­

tion that he had said 75 percent of the colored employees 
would be eliminated? A. The only mention he made of 
75 percent in his office was I told him that Dr. Brimm said 
that he said 75 percent would be eliminated and—

Q. And didn’t he tell you at that time it was an absolute 
falsehood? A. No, sir, he didn’t tell me.

Q. Do you deny that conversation took place with Mr.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



53

Kenneth Daniels? A. Yes, sir, the conversation was pri­
marily about the Salvation Army.

Q. I am not talking about the Salvation Army, but I am 
talking about the time you discussed this thing where you 
attributed Mr. Daniels with a statement that 75 percent of 
the colored employees would be eliminated and he told you 
at that time that was an absolute falsehood? A. No.

Q. You deny that? A. I deny that.
Q. Do you recall being in his office? A. Yes, sir, more 

than once.
Q. I am talking about on the occasion when that 75 per­

cent thing was discussed. A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you if you recall he said to you in discussing 

the impact of the testing program with the colored Board, 
the Auxiliary Board, he had said in his opinion that requir­
ing the colored applicants to meet the same tests and be 
graduates of high school as had been required of the white 
employees for seven or eight years, would do a dis-service 
to the Negro applicants, in his opinion, and that they were 
not at that time at a sufficient educational level to compete 
with the white people? A. No, sir.

Q. I will ask you whether or not you have not been in­
formed by Mr. Daniel and Mr. Copeland that the testing 
program has not resulted in any man being downgraded 
or removed from the job? You have been informed of that? 
A. No, sir.

Q. They have never had that discussion with you? A. 
No, sir.

Q. Have you had anything like that discussed with you? 
A. We talked about the testing policy and we asked Mr. 
Daniel on certain jobs where men were doing the jobs and 
we thought the job description would not merit a man 
making $3.25 an hour, that the tests be waived, and Mr. 
Daniels responded this could not be done.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



54

Q. You talking about the changing of wage rates and 
job descriptions? A. Not changing the job rate but de­
scribing the job and evaluating it on the point system.

Q. Have you not been told that the testing program was 
not designed and has not been used and was not intended 
to be used to downgrade a single employee regardless of 
his color! A. No, we never discussed it in that light.

Q. You never discussed it in that light! A. No, sir.
Q. In what light have you discussed it! A. We dis­

cussed it and asked that be eliminated because these 
Negroes—

Q. Eliminate what! A. The testing policy, that it was 
unfair because we have men working on jobs as a ramming 
station and we feel by the point system these jobs would be 
upgraded into the upper bracket. That is the way we 
discussed it. That letter went to Mr. Daniel and the Board 
of Management to that effect.

Q. I would agree you have suggested that everybody be 
upgraded, but my question is has anybody been down­
graded and hasn’t that been discussed with you that nobody 
has been downgraded as a result of any testing program? 
A. I never said anybody was downgraded. They were 
denied the opportunity to be upgraded.

Q. As a matter of fact, there hasn’t been laid off a colored 
employee out there, has there? No reduction of work force 
colored or white either one, since 1965? A. To my knowl­
edge. Things are pretty well at a level. I hear by the grape­
vine that Mr. Copeland was asked were there going to be 
any layoffs because the grapevine said there would be.

Q. And you started that, didn’t you? A. No, it was told 
to me.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



55

Q. And you put it in the letter two years ago that there 
would be 75 percent laid off and that hasn’t occurred? A, 
No, sir, not yet.

Q. Following this letter when it came to the attention of 
the company, the July 13 letter, that you were called in 
by Mr.'—Mr. Hairston made an appointment by telephone 
with you to come into Mr. Copeland’s office, is that right? 
Didn’t he make that engagement with you? A. As Chair­
man of the Auxiliary Board I will be called many occasions 
to come out to attend Disciplinary Committee meetings 
and what have you. Many times I go out and investigate 
charges that employees file.

Q. But on September 5, 1967, the day after Labor Day 
this year— A. Mr. Hairston called me approximately 
8:30.

Q. And he asked you to come in? A. Yes, sir, to be 
there at eleven at his office.

Q. To be at his office at eleven? A. Yes, sir, that he 
wanted to see me.

Q. He did ask you to come in earlier but you told him 
you had automobile trouble? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you come in at eleven o’clock? A. I didn’t get 
there until approximately one o’clock something.

Q. You were in an Auxiliary Board meeting? A. I went 
straight from the Auxiliary Board meeting.

Q. And you didn’t go to Mr. Copeland’s office? A. No, 
sir.

Q. Andd he sent for you and asked you to come down 
there? A. Correct.

Q. He asked you if you had written this letter of July 
13, 1967? A. I told him that was my signature.

Q. You told him you had written it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he said you had been discharged? A. He told 

me that I made false, malicious, libelous accusations

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



56

against the company and employees and I was being dis­
charged.

Q. Do you recall that he read to you what the charge 
was? A. False, malicious, and libelous accusations against 
the American Cast Iron Pipe Company and its employees.

Q. And it set out this letter of July 13, is that right? 
A. That is not what he read to me.

Q. He didn’t read it to you? A. He stated it to me.
Q. Did he have this in front of him and read it to you? 

A. No, I didn’t see it in front of him.
Q. And didn’t he state to you that you had made false 

and malicious accusations against the company and its offi­
cials or employees in a letter dated July 13, 1967? A. He 
did say that, yes, sir.

Q. In a letter to Stephen Shulman, Chairman of the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission with a copy 
being sent by you to the President of the United States, 
and in particular a false and malicious accusation that the 
company had bribed or caused to be bribed or otherwise 
improperly influence a public official of the United States 
Government in the exercise of his official duty? A. The 
only statement Mr. Copeland made to me is I had made 
false, malicious and libelous accusations against the Amer­
ican Cast Iron Pipe Company and its officials and I was 
being discharged.

Q. And didn’t he say to you further that such accusa­
tions are completely without foundation, in fact, and are 
so grossly libelous that they cannot be tolerated or in any 
manner condoned? A. I didn’t hear that.

Q. And didn’t he state further that furthermore such 
accusations accuse the company and its representatives of 
committing acts in violation of the criminal statutes of the 
United States? A. I didn’t hear that.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



57

Q. Mr. George Hairston was present at that time! A. 
He was present when I was discharged.

Q. At the time you were discharged Mr. Copeland told 
you you were being discharged for false and malicious 
statements and you made no denial of the fact it was false, 
what was said in this letter of July 13, 1967, in which you 
accused the company officials? A. The only statement I 
made after that was a question what was I to do, leave 
the company, and he said yes, and I left.

Q. And this letter of July 13, in the second paragraph 
you said, “Having informed you more than once of the 
above-mentioned statement we cannot help but to believe 
the company is receiving some type of cover-up protection 
for its unfair employment practices.”

What information did you have at that time that the 
company was receiving any type of cover-up protection?

Mr. Adams: We object to that for the reason I 
think the issue as the Court defined it in this case 
is whether or not this petitioner was fired because 
of a complaint made to the EEOC in connection with 
employment discrimination. That is the narrow is­
sue. But I don’t believe what we are going into 
here now is possible for us to do so in the time that 
we have to do it. It is getting into the complete 
merits of the case.

The Court: I am not going into the merits of the 
principal case, but that question is a proper question 
on cross examination.

I will overrule.
You may answer the question.

A. May I hear the question?
Q. The question was with reference to this letter, a sen­

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



58

tence in the second paragraph of the letter to Mr. Shulman, 
dated July 13, 1967, “We cannot help but believe the com­
pany is receiving some type of cover-up protection for its 
unfair employment practices.”

My question was, what information, evidence or anything 
else you had in your possession on July 13, 1967, that indi­
cated any type of cover-up protection? A. Well, it had 
grew out of the background information that we—in these 
meetings we had with Dr. Brimm, and I think it was made 
mention in that same light that we had had some similar 
experience with Dr. Hugh Brimm when he used profanity 
and tried to discourage our effort.

Q. And you say in the last paragraph of the letter that 
“Along this line we had similar experiences with Dr. Hugh 
Brimm.”

Is that what you had reference to! A. We were led to 
believe the agent was going to deal fair with us and he 
said he was in our corner as did Mr. Hollingsworth, and he 
thought we were doing a good job in the light of equal op­
portunity for employment at Acipco. He didn’t know why 
things were happening like they were. He said that the 
Jew and the Italian had come to America and melted into 
society but it had been different for the Negro. He had said 
the EEOC would do everything they could to correct the 
situation and he was in our corner in the investigation. But 
like Dr. Brimm said, he didn’t know men do things like 
they do, and then ended up and told us that we could get 
fined for this sort of thing. The report went in and the 
decision was to the contrary and we just wondered what 
happened. We wondered how he changed overnight.

Q. You had no evidence of any cover-up protection being 
given or bought from Mr. Hollingsworth or Dr. Brimm, did 
you? A. We were bringing to the Commission’s attention

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



59

where we felt he hadn’t been fair about it and he didn’t 
come to the scene of the alleged incident and didn’t even 
look at the graphic drawing of the place.

Q. You do know that he didn’t go there? A. He didn’t 
come while I was there.

The Court: The court will be in recess until 1 :30.

(Court was in recess from 12:05 p.m. until 1:30
p.m.)

The Court: All right, we will resume the cross 
examination.

Cross Examination by Mr. Forman (Continued):

Q. You recall I was asking you about certain passages out 
of your July 13, 1967, letter, when we adjourned.

Let me make reference to the last paragraph of that let­
ter where it says, “Along this line we had similar exeprience 
with Dr. Hugh Brimm.”

Now, when was the last time you had any contact with Dr. 
Hugh Brimm? A. That was prior to the meeting which 
Mr. Copeland had with the Negro employees and informed 
the employees that Dr. Hugh Brimm said that everything 
was all right at Acipco and any charges being filed, they 
would be filed with Dr. Brimm, and Dr. Brimm had already 
given his okay. That was our last meeting prior to that.

Q. When was that, in your best recollection? A. My 
best recollection of the time he was in a meeting with us— 
correction, the last meeting was with Mr. Toles. A charge 
was filed that Dr. Brimm had not dealt fair with us and Mr. 
Toles came to investigate Dr. Brimm.

Q. And the last time you saw Dr. Brimm was in July, 
1965, is that right? A. Yes, sir.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



60

Q. And Dr. Brimm had nothing to do with the investiga­
tion conducted by Mr. Hollingsworth on this charge of your 
being laid off for two weeks'! A. Dr. Brimm wasn’t in on 
that and had nothing to do with it. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Now, what evidence did you have at the time you 
wrote this letter of July 13, 1967, that Dr. Brimm had been 
paid off or bribed! A. We never said Dr. Brimm had 
been paid off. We never said he had been bribed.

Q. Let me read the last paragraph of your letter in 
which you state, “In summary we believe somebody some­
how got to Mr. Hollingsworth to investigate the case. We 
don’t know what was done or offered him but we do know 
it had to have been something, otherwise, your decision 
would not have been so far off base. Along this line we had 
similar experiences with Dr. Hugh Brimm. A. Mr. Hol­
lingsworth was so much in our corner and he had explained 
how the Italian and the Jew and the Irish had come to 
America and had been able to melt into the society but it 
had been true for the Negro and we were doing a good 
job of representing the Negro trying to secure equal em­
ployment opportunity at Acipco for the Negro. Dr. Brimm 
was of that same opinion when he first met with us. He 
was in our corner one hundred percent and he was going to 
do all he could to help us in our effort. Mr. Hollingsworth 
made statements like that, that he wanted to help us and 
that the Commission had thought we were doing a pretty 
good job as a whole. Then when the decision come out so 
much to the contrary what he said, we thought somebody 
had persuaded him somehow to change his mind about the 
situation. The decision was different from the statement 
and opinions he had conveyed to us which led us to believe 
that we would get something done about it.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



61

Q. Mr. Hollingsworth told you he was going to investi­
gate it? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And Dr. Brimm told you he was going to make an 
investigation? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And as a matter of fact, for the record, you made a 
complaint, did you not, in November, 1963, to the President 
of the United States about wanting to become an engineer 
and get a job in the Engineering Department? A. I re­
member the complaint.

Q. Do you have a copy of that complaint? A. No, I do 
not. There was only one copy of that complaint and it was 
sent to the President’s Committee of which Dr. Hugh Brimm 
investigated. The only evidence of that is Dr. Brimm’s let­
ter to me stating he had been in Birmingham on a certain 
date.

Q. He had had your complaint referred to him? Let me 
see Dr. Brimm’s letter to you.

We would like to have this introduced in evidence if the 
Court please. It is not signed but appears to be from Dr. 
Brimm dated November 26, 1963.

The Court: It isn’t a long letter, is it?
Mr. Forman: A single page. We can Xerox it.
The Court: All right, Xerox it and let him have 

his back.
Mr. Forman: Mark this, please.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 2 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Defendant’s Exhibit 2 is the letter you received from 
Dr. Brimm telling you he would be in Birmingham to in­
vestigate it? A. Be in Birmingham the evening of the 3rd 
of November, 1963.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—-Cross



62

Q. Three days, isn’t it? A. That’s right.
Q. Did Dr, Brimm come to Birmingham at that time? 

A. I had an appointment with him.
Q. Wasn’t that charge of discrimination you made at 

that time that you had not been transferred to the Engi­
neering Department? A. The charge was that I had taken 
a course in Industrial Engineering with the International 
Correspondence School, and when I entered the school they 
had advised that I should be working in an engineering 
capacity of some sort while pursuing this particular course. 
My request was that I had talked to my foreman and to 
Mr. S. D. Moxley about that to no avail and I made the 
statement and charge that—•

Q. You made the charge, didn’t you? A. That’s right.
Q. Following that, and that is in November, 1963, Dr. 

Brimm came to town and investigated it and there was a 
determination in reference to that charge that there was 
no evidence of discrimination, wasn’t there? A. At Acipco 
this Mr. Ward McReady, the Chairman of this particular 
committee, that passed on the investigation by Dr. Brimm, 
they didn’t find reasonable cause to believe that the com­
pany was discriminating against Negro employees.

Q. Against you in that charge? A. Negroes was men­
tioned.

Q. In October, 1964, you and others made another 
charge of discriminatory practices to the President, you 
and others made another charge of discriminatory prac­
tices to the President, did you not? A. We proceeded to 
make a number of charges.

Q. Well, I want to get them in chronological order. A. 
Let me check my record. We have a letter of thank you 
from Dr. Brimm on November—in November, 1963. The

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



63

next charge was August 13, 1965—August, 1964, that we 
filed.

Q. I am talking about October 16, 1964. A. Oh, yes, we 
made this charge, that’s right.

Q. And, of course, the charge as made didn’t have the 
handwritten notes on it.

Do you have a clear copy? A. Yes, we have that.
Q. And do you have here the list of the names, the signa­

tures? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That were not signed to this letter but they were 

typed on this letter? A. That’s right, we didn’t have any 
way of duplicating the copies.

Mr. Foreman: If the Court please, with the ex­
planation that the handwritten part is not a part of 
the communication, we would like to have this iden­
tified as Defendant’s next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 3 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Approximately how many names are on there, do 
you recall? A. 108.

Q. And no man whose name appears there has been 
fired or downgraded in any disciplinary action against him ? 
A. There are 108 men on there but all of them are not in 
the company now.

Q. But some have quit and died? I am talking about, to 
your knowledge, has anybody on that list been down­
graded or fired or disciplined in any manner for having 
their name appear on that letter? A. Well, you see, these 
men work in different departments and—

Q. I am asking you for your knowledge. A. To my 
knowledge, all of these men—I don’t know whether they

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



64

all are there or not. I don’t know whether they have been 
fired but some are not with Acipco now.

Q. Following the October 14 letter, you directed another 
letter, did you not, to the President on—it is undated, but 
has a note 12-14-64.

Do you recall seeing that letter and the five signatures'? 
A. Yes, we signed it.

Mr. Foreman: I would like to have this identified 
as the next exhibit with an explanation, if the Court 
please, the handwritten matter is not part of the 
original.

Q. There are five names on that letter, yourself, Joseph 
Marbury, and is he still employed by the company! A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Is Luther Cooper, Jr. still employed by the company? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Melvin Story! A. No longer with the committee. 
Q. Is he still an employee of the company? A. Yes, sir. 
Q. And David Jordan, is he still an employee of the 

company? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, subsequent to writing—let me 

ask you about this letter.
Looking at a letter dated March 14, 1965, I will ask you 

whether or not you prepared and sent that letter to the 
President? A. Yes.

Q. And that is signed by the same five people? A. Yes, 
sir.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross

Mr. Forman: We would like to have that identified 
as the next exhibit.



65

(Defendant’s Exhibit 5 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. After this letter of March 14, 1965, Dr. Brimm had 
another conference, did he not, here in Birmingham at 
Acipco attended by you and the five people—the other 
four who signed this letter, met with you on May 7? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. And at that May 7 meeting this letter of March 14 
was discussed with Dr. Brimm and others'? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And at that time didn’t Dr. Brimm say to you that 
this accusation of your employer discriminating in the 
recruiting program, that recruiting is done according to 
race in both the college and high school program? Didn’t 
Dr. Brimm tell you at that time he had investigated that 
charge on two or three prior occasions and there was no 
truth whatsoever and at that meeting he read to you the 
section of the Code of the United States which said it 
was a crime to file false charges with the government 
officials? A. Part of which you said is true, the last part 
where he said it was a crime to file a charge but I am 
not saying he didn’t find any truth in this charge. He 
didn’t comment on that.

Q. And part which says they were recruiting according 
to race in both the high school and college programs, he 
said there was no truth to that whatsoever? A. No, sir.

Q. Didn’t he say you should have checked with the high 
schools to see? A. No, sir.

Q. Didn’t he tell you he had information too that Acipco 
didn’t recruit in any high school? A. No, sir, in fact, we 
didn’t discuss the recruiting program.

Q. Wasn’t that conference taken down on a tape recorder?

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



66

A. Part of it. The part stating that you have been 
harassing me two years wasn’t recorded on the tape. That 
statement was made after the tape ran out.

Q. At that conference you accused Dr. Brimm of being 
biased and prejudiced against you! A. I did not.

Q. Didn’t you follow that up with a letter in which you 
repeated that accusation! A. We followed the conference 
up with a letter to the President and in that we made men­
tion as stated before that we had had conferences with 
Dr. Brimm and that Dr. Brimm was very biased in his 
dealings with us and that he had used profanity.

Q. And you followed that up with a complaint about Dr. 
Brimm! A. That’s right, and as a result of that com­
plaint Mr. Toles came down to investigate Dr. Brimm.

Q. When did he come down! A. I don’t recall the exact 
date he came down.

Q. Do you recall that—following the day you wrote to 
the President, you wrote to the Vice-President on June 8, 
1965, complaining about Dr. Brimm! A. Primarily this 
was done.

Q. Let me ask you, do you recognize that letter (indi­
cating) ! A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: I would like to have identified as 
the next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 6 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Mr. Forman: We would like to introduce Defen­
dant’s Exhibit 6.

In that letter you accused Dr. Brimm of being 
very prejudiced and biased—you state that Mr. 
Brimm was very prejudiced, biased, and occasion­
ally rude in his general behavior toward you.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross



Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Cross

A. Yes, sir.
Q. Following that letter you received a promotion at 

Acipco? Were you upgraded in your job? A. Following 
that letter?

Q. Subsequent in time. On August 17—well, I am not 
sure that is correct. A. I was upgraded as a result of 
Mr. Toles’ investigation of Dr. Brirrirn.

Q. What job did you move from and to? A. I was do­
ing—this is a basic job here referred to as a Hydraulic 
Arm Operator, I think, is the title. But the job descrip­
tion is cleaning out flasks from a resin bond process after 
a casting is made.

Q. On August 14, 1965, were you not moved from this 
clean out job you have made reference to to a Rammer job? 
A. No, I was a Rammer.

Q. Casting Machine Operator, pardon me. A. I was 
moved from a Ramming Station to Sand Mixing and from 
that to the clean out operation and at that particular time 
I was moved to the Casting Machine.

Q. On August 14, 1965? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that was your promotion? A. Yes, that was— 

that job paid more.
Q. By the way, the other people who signed this letter, 

Melvin Story, in this same period of time, was promoted? 
Do you recall that? A. He was given a job of Ladle Liner. 
He wasn’t upgraded as such because this was a Negro job 
at the beginning. Always has been.

Q. Did he make more money? A. Yes.

Mr. Forman: I believe that’s all.



68

Redirect Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. Mr. Wrenn, are you familiar Math the decision of the 
EEOC of November 7, 1967, in which this paragraph oc­
curs, “ The protection of Section 704(a) of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, is a broad mothering wing for those who 
bring charges, testify, assist or participate in any manner 
in investigations, proceedings or hearings under this Title. 
The determination of whether Charging Party has com­
mitted a libel against respondent is one to be made prop­
erly by a court of law, not by this Commission or by the 
respondent, and the remedy for respondent is to institute 
suit in this regard, not to discharge Charging Party. Re­
spondent is hereby advised to rectify this situation by 
reinstating Charging Party and thus avert the formaliza­
tion of charges in this regard.” A. I have a copy of that, 
yes, sir.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Redirect

Mr. Forman: We feel that should go into evidence.
Mr. Adams: We will introduce it.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)

Q. Mr. Wrenn, would you state for the record your edu­
cational qualifications? A. I finished this correspondence 
school with the International Correspondence School. I 
took a course in Industrial Engineering and I had started 
to take a course in Professional Engineering with the 
school which prompted the first charge with the Presi­
dent’s Committee for Equal Employment Opportunity in 
that the school advised me to seek experience in an engi­
neering capacity if I was going to pursue this course.

Q. Have you finished elementary school? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you been to high school? A. I have G.E.D. 

certificate.



69

Q. What is that! A. General Educational Development, 
from the State of Alabama.

Q. Do you have a high school equivalent! A. That is 
a high school equivalent.

Q. Do you have that there? Do you have it with you? 
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Adams: We offer that as an exhibit.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 marked for identification.)

Q. I think you say you have a diploma from the cor­
respondence school in Industrial Engineering? A. That 
is the school that furnishes our apprentice program at 
Acipco. Furnishes material for the apprentice program.

In addition to this, prior to my discharge I was taking 
from the I.C.S. Design Drafting, and the company was to 
cut this out of my pay.

Mr. Adams: I will offer that as Plaintiff’s Ex­
hibit 7.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 marked for identification.)

Q. Since that time you have also taken a test given by 
the G.E.D., American Council on Education? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you get a score on that test?A. Yes, sir, 
this is a test I took with the government for technical aid 
and engineering assistance down here.

Q. But you did take the test with the American Council 
on Education? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did that indicate? A. It indicated I could go 
to the University of Alabama.

Mr. Forman: We object to that, the document 
speaks for itself.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff— Redirect



70

Q. What is this document (indicating)? A. The G.E.D.
Q. To what? A. Test for General Education Develop­

ment.

Mr. Adams: We would like to offer that in evi­
dence.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 8 marked for identification.)

Q. Mr. Wrenn, will you tell the Court whether or not 
there is a labor union at American Cast Iron Pipe Com­
pany? A. No, sir, there is not a labor union there.

Q. Insofar as the Negroes are concerned, what particu­
lar Board or organization performs the function as a 
labor union? A. The Negro Auxiliary Board.

Q. Is there any other committee or organized group of 
people performing such function at Acipco ? A. The white 
Board of Operatives.

Q. For white persons? A. A Negro can file a complaint 
through the white Board of Operatives if he so sees fit. 
But the white cannot file through the Negro Board.

Q. Mr. Wrenn, I think you have gone—Mr. Forman 
stated that in your letter according that Mr. Daniel said 
75 percent of the Negroes would be eliminated, can you 
tell the Court whether or not there has been anything 
done by Acipco in furtherance of that particular state­
ment made by the President? A. After we filed this 
charge and stated that the company had employed 200 
white employees over and against ten Negro employees. 
It was investigated by an investigator from the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission and the Commission 
found that it had been 200 white and seven Negroes em­
ployed over the last year. We have filed charges that this 
particular practice lias continued until now.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Redirect

The Court: I will sustain the objection.



71

Q. So that in 1965 there were 200 white employed and 
only seven Negroes? A. That was the charge we made in 
1965.

Q. I will show you a copy of the Commissioner’s de­
cision in your original case and ask you to look at page 3.

Are you familiar with the Commissioner’s decision in this 
charge against Acipco? A. Yes, 200 white and seven 
Negro.

Q. In 1965? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Adams: I am going to offer this as Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 9.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 marked for identification.)

Mr. Forman: If the Court please, there are ten 
pages and we have not seen it and may we have a 
moment to glance at it?

The Court: We can make a Xerox copy of that.
Mr. Forman: I think the original charge—that is 

the finding in the Pettway case. I believe it is al­
ready a part of the pleadings.

Mr. Adams: I don’t think it has been attached.
Mr. Forman: Well, I don’t recall.
Mr. Adams: I offer that as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9.
Now, do you have any information that this policy 

of not hiring Negroes in substantial numbers still 
exists ?

Mr. Forman: We object to that, may it please the 
Court.

The Court: Sustain the objection.

Q. What is the situation so far as Negroes being hired 
at Acipco, if you know? A. As far as any knowledge of

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Redirect



72

the employment practice now, that particular policy has 
continued up to now.

Q. I believe when you filed your complaint with the Pres­
ident’s Committee there were about 890 Negroes employed 
at Acipco, is that correct? A. At that time about 900 
Negroes.

Q. Do you know the number of Negroes employed at 
Acipco now? A. Really 790.

Q. 790? A. Yes, sir, and about 2700 employees are 
there now.

Q. Mr. Wrenn, since you filed the lawsuit in this case 
against Acipco along with other Negro employees, has any 
action been taken so far as your charges are concerned, 
A. Yes, the first thing done as a result of our charges here, 
going back to the time Mr. Toles came and investigated 
Dr. Brimm and upon Mr. Toles’ recommendations to Mr. 
Copeland that the clock houses be changed, the white and 
colored were punching out at separate clock houses, and 
Mr. Toles recommended this be changed and be made one.

Also out of that came our promotion that the attorney 
referred to. I was moved off this flask cleaning out opera­
tion and put on the casting machine operation.

As a result of that, a poster was placed on the bulletin 
board stating anybody who believed or felt they were being 
discriminated against in any way could file charges to that 
effect with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis­
sion. This had not been done. We had asked this be done 
but it had not been done. But as a result of this particular 
incident it was done and at the present time from what I 
have been told since I left that a crash program is on—

Mr. Forman: We object to that.
The Court: Sustain the objection.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Redirect



73

Q. You can only speak about what happened while you 
were there.

Mr. Forman: The Civil Eights Act has been 
passed since his first complaint.

A. As a result of my filing the complaint—

Mr. Forman: We object to that as calling for a 
mental conclusion of the part of the witness.

The Court: Since he filed a complaint!
Mr. Adams: I mean the complaint in the Pettway 

vs. American Cast Iron Pipe Company.

A. Yes, I understand. The Auxiliary Board which was 
composed of Negroes exclusively wasn’t allowed to serve 
on any committee like the Disciplinary Committee, the A.M.
B. C. Committee, the Rate Committee, the Suggestion Com­
mittee, or any of these, but as a result of the charges we 
have been permitted to.

Q. I don’t want you to testify about any results of the 
charge but what has followed since the complaint was filed 
concerning these things? A. These things were done.

Q. What about the Disciplinary Committee? A. The 
Chairman of the Auxiliary Board, which I was Chairman 
of, was privileged—in other words, the Chairman of the 
Auxiliary Board is allowed to serve on the Disciplinary 
Committee, and also the Investigating Committee, the 
A.M.B.C. Committee, and also the Rate Committee.

Q. Tell the Court what the Disciplinary Committee does? 
What is it set up to do? A. The Disciplinary Committee 
is set up primarily to mete out punishment as set forth 
in the By-Laws of the company.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Redirect



74

The Court: I believe we are getting far afield 
from the issues in this case.

Mr. Adams: Your Honor, one thing I am con­
cerned about here was in his particular case, his 
case wasn’t handled like the other cases were han­
dled before the Disciplinary Committee. It is to 
show he was discharged because of his activities in 
filing complaints with the Equal Employment Op­
portunity Commission.

The Court: I don’t want to go into the Discipli­
nary Committee and its make-up and function un­
related to this particular incident.

A. The Disciplinary Committee votes by a majority vote 
—by unanimous vote whether or not the party is guilty. 
If they don’t agree, then the Board of Management takes 
the case.

Q. Did you ever appear before this committee in your 
case? A. No, sir.

Q. Were you ever given notice to come before the Com­
mittee ? A. Only to serve on it.

Q. I mean in connection with your discharge? A. No, 
sir.

Q. Did you ever have a hearing on your discharge? A. 
Not to my knowledge.

Q. I mean did you come in and have an opportunity to 
present your case? A. No, sir.

Q. I think you testified you were called in by an official 
of the company in connection with this discharge, is that 
right? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And his name was what? A. F. H. Copeland.
Q. Did you know what you were going to see him about 

when he called you in? A. No, sir.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Redirect



75

Q. He didn’t tell you your discharge was being con­
sidered? A. Not prior to going there. I asked Mr. 
Hairston when he called me that morning and told me he 
wanted me in Mr. Copeland’s office at eleven o’clock and I 
asked Mr. Hairston what was the nature of the meeting and 
he said he didn’t know.

Q. You testified you didn’t get any written papers pre­
sented to you at that time? A. No, sir.

Q. Did they tell you you had a right to appeal such dis­
charge? A. No, sir.

Q. Did they tell you who had discharged you? A. He 
said the Board of Management discharged me.

Q. Did he say the Disciplinary Committee had voted to 
discharge you? A. No, sir, the Board of Management.

Q. In addition to that, Mr. Wrenn, you filed a charge of 
discrimination on October 20, 1966, along with several 
others? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is this a copy of the charge of discrimination (in­
dicating) ? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Adams: We would like to offer that as Plain­
tiff’s Exhibit 10.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 10 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. I call your attention to your letter of July 13, 1967. 
You said, “In summary, we believe somebody, somewhat 
got to Mr. Holliway who investigated the case.”

Will you tell the Court what you meant by that state­
ment? A. We meant no more or no less than we tried to 
get the Commission to reconsider his findings and that 
based on our experience with the former investigator, Dr. 
Hugh Brimm, and Mr. Hollingsworth’s statement that he

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Redirect



76

was in our corner and lie felt we were doing a good job and, 
in fact, he said the Commission as a whole thought we were 
doing a good job in our effort to secure equal employment 
opportunities at Acipco.

Q. Did Dr. Brimm state in words or in writing that he 
felt no cause to believe Acipco was discriminating against 
the Negroes! A. No, sir, he didn’t say that.

Q. Did he make any specific findings of discriminatory 
practices by Acipco! A. He said the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Committee’s decision would be based on his 
findings.

Q. Did you ever get a decision from him! A. No, sir.
Q. Never got one! A. No, sir, never got one.
Q. And you don’t know what his findings were! A. No, 

sir.
Q. Now, so far as the things you make in your complaint 

against EEOC and the things you made in your complaint 
filed in this court, did those things exist when Dr. Brimm 
went to Acipco! A. Yes, sir.

Q. The same things that you complain of in your com­
plaint! A. Yes, sir, no changes took place until Mr. Toles 
came.

Q. Any changes been made after this complaint was filed 
so far as the recreational facilities and the eating facilities 
and the medical facilities! A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: I object to that.
The Court: Sustain the objection.

Q. You stated those things did exist when Mr. Brimm 
was present! A. We had a segregated cafeteria.

Mr. Forman: We object to that, if the Court 
please, that is the very question the Court sustained 
the objection to.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Redirect



77

The Court: I sustain the objection.
Mr. Adams: That’s all.

Recross Examination by Mr. Forman:

Q. I would like to ask you if you made this additional 
charge on September 7, 19671 A. Yes.

Q. You made that charge with the EEOC on September 
7, 1967, did you not! A. I made this charge with the legal 
defense and Mr. Wesley and Dr. Hary made photostat 
copies of all our records including the particular charges 
and our receipt.

Q. Who was the legal defense! A. N.A.A.C.P.
Q. In New York or here! A. Here.
Q. Who is Dr. Harry! A. He is on the Commission of 

Equal Employment Opportunity.
Q. Didn’t he come in and investigate this very charge 

you made September 7 of being discharged by Acipco! A. 
He wasn’t there at that time.

Q. You didn’t make your charge with the EEOC! A. 
Well, this come out and he made a copy of that and how 
he got this filed with them, I don’t know.

Mr. Adams: We drafted the charge and sent to 
New York and I gave Mr. Wrenn a copy. We de­
cided not to file it and apparently it was filed in 
Birmingham and we made no issue about it being 
filed.

Mr. Forman: Well, we have been investigated 
about a charge that nobody intended to file. It was 
filed the 7th of September.

Identify this as defendant’s next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 7 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Recross



78

Q. Didn’t Dr. Brimm at the time you and the rest of the 
—the other four members of the committee and Mr. Daniel 
and Mr. Copeland and Mr. Burr and Mr. George Hairston 
were in that conference on May 7, 1965, didn’t Dr. Brimm 
tell you at that time he had investigated the testing pro­
gram at Acipco and he had told Acipco that since they re­
quired the tests of white employees, that they had to treat 
all employees alike, both colored and white, and would have 
to put the test in for the colored employees. Do you recall 
that! A. I recall Mr. Copeland saying Dr. Brimm said 
they were discriminating against white employees and not 
the Negro.

Q. Do you remember Dr. Brimm saying he had looked 
into that and said the program had to be fair for colored 
and white, both had to take the tests and they were going 
to be required— A. That is not what he told us.

Q. Didn’t Dr. Brimm say that to you! A. I don’t recall 
Dr. Brimm saying that.

Q. Didn’t Dr. Brimm tell you he considered the program 
to be a model program and that he recommended it to other 
federal contractors! A. That is what Mr. Copeland told 
us in a meeting that Dr. Brimm said that.

Q. And you say Dr. Brimm didn’t say that to you in your 
presence on May 7! A. He didn’t say that to me.

Q. Or in your presence! A. I don’t recall that.
Q. And didn’t you respond to him in talking about re­

quiring the test and you said it was all right, that you 
wanted him to require the test of colored employees because 
it made them feel inferior if they did not! A. I did not 
state that.

Q. Do you deny saying that to Dr. Brimm on that oc­
casion! A. I do deny that and I have heard that more than 
one time and each time I denied that.

Peter J. Wrenn— Plaintiff—Recross



79

Q. Would you recognize your voice on a tape recorder! 
A. Most certainly.

Mr. Forman: If the Court please, we would tender 
the tape. It is a four-hour tape.

Mr. Adams: We object to that.
The Court: Sustain the objection, I haven’t got 

time to listen to it.
Mr. Forman: I believe that’s all.
The Court: Next witness.

(Witness Excused)

Leonard Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct

M e . L eonard L ew is , called as a witness, being duly sworn, 
was examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. State your name, please. A. Leonard Lewis.
Q. Mr. Lewis, where do you live! A. 828 St. Julian 

Street, Bessemer.
Q. Are you employed at the American Cast Iron Pipe 

Company! A. I am.
Q. How long have you been so employed! A. Ten years 

and ten months.
Q. And do you know the petitioner in this case, Mr. 

Peter Wrenn! A. Yes.
Q. Ho you have a position with the Auxiliary Commit­

tee at the American Cast Iron Pipe Company! A. Yes, 
an appointed position.

Q. Were you also elected to be a member of the Auxiliary 
Committee! A. No, sir, elected to be a member of the 
Auxiliary Board.



80

Q. And you. have an appointed position on the Board? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is that? A. Chairman of the Living and Work­
ing Conditions Committee.

Q. Who were you appointed by? A. The Chairman of 
the Auxiliary Board.

Q. Who was that? A. Peter Wrenn.
Q. Mr. Peter Wrenn? A. Right.
Q. Do you also by virtue of being on the Auxiliary 

Board have a position on the Disciplinary Committee? A. 
Ido .

Q. How long have you been on the Disciplinary Com­
mittee? A. I can’t recall the exact date. It was after I 
became a member of the Board.

Q. How many members on the Disciplinary Committee? 
A. Nine.

Q. How many Negroes? A. Two.
Q. What is the other Negro’s name? A. Earl Murphey.
Q. Is he acting Chairman of the Auxiliary Board? A. 

Right.
Q. Mr. Lewis, will you tell us whether or not the case 

of Peter Wrenn was presented to the Disciplinary Com­
mittee? A. Well, on this particular day—

Q. What day? A. On Tuesday, September 5, 1967, I was 
called down to the Personnel Office and told we were sup­
posed to have a Disciplinary Committee meeting at eleven 
o’clock and that no investigation was necessary. The only 
thing we had to do is go in and listen to whatever manage­
ment proposed.

Q. What happened? A. The charges were read to dis­
charge Peter Wrenn and we were to vote. At this par­
ticular time the majority voted for it and I voted against it.

Leonard Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct



81

Q. What happened after the vote was made? A. After 
the vote was made it wasn’t a unanimous decision.

Q. In other words, is it true you have to have a unani­
mous decision of the committee before an act is effective? 
A. I don’t know if it is the practice or policy of the com­
pany but that is the proceeding the committee followed.

Q. And always has since you have been there? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Do you know whether or not if there is no unanimous 
decision what happens? A. It goes back to the manage­
ment and management makes the final decision.

Q. Do you know what vote the other Negro on the com­
mittee was? A. He didn’t vote.

Q. Did Peter Wrenn appear before the committee? A. 
No, sir.

Q. Was he notified to come before the committee? A. 
I don’t know.

Q. Did you notify him? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. Do you know the general educational qualifications 

of Negroes at Acipco? Are they high school graduates 
as far as the Negroes are concerned? A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know what the average grade level is for 
Negroes employed at Acipco? A. I don’t know, but I 
know what I have been told.

Q. Who told you? A. Well, several occasions Mr. Cope­
land told ns that—

Q. Who is Mr. Copeland? A. Mr. Frank Copeland, 
Vice-President of the company.

Q. What did he tell you about this? A. He said they 
were way below the average white. Most came from—had 
a third grade education.

Q. Before the suit was filed in this case, Pettway vs. 
Acipco, and during the time you were a member of the

Leonard Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Direct



82

Auxiliary Board, did Mr. Daniel and some of the officials 
of Acipco meet with the Auxiliary Board? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did they stop meeting with the Board? A. 
Well, I can’t recall the exact date but I remember it was 
during the time I believe in 1965—latter part of 1965.

Q. Was it before or after this suit was filed? A. It was 
after.

Q. Do you recall what they said when they decided not 
to meet with the committee? A. They said since I believe 
you and some other members of the Board have filed 
charges with the Commissioner, the Court will decide in due 
time, and there was about three or four members of man­
agement and they got up and left.

Q. Have they been back since that time? A. Not to­
gether. On different occasions Mr. Copeland returned.

Q. Has Mr. Daniel been back? A. Not with the Auxil­
iary Board alone.

Q. When has he been with anyone on the Board at 
Acipco? A. Last Christmas we had a meeting with man­
agement.

Q. And he never met with the Negro Auxiliary Board 
since that time? A. No, sir.

Q. Have you ever heard him make the statement that— 
of the complaint about employment discrimination at Acipco 
that the Courts have decided this issue and the Courts will 
decide it again? A. No, I wasn’t on the Board at that time.

Mr. Adams: That’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. Forman:

Q. Do you recall the charge read to the Disciplinary 
Committee as the one made against Peter Wrenn? A. 
Bight.

Leonard Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Cross



83

Q. This is it (indicating)? A. Eight.

Mr. Forman: I would like to have this identified 
as the next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 8 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Were you on the Disciplinary Committee at the time 
that Peter Wrenn was laid off for two weeks? A. Right.

Q. And the consideration of that charge of provoking a 
fight with Glen Limbaugh, the committee was unanimous 
in laying both parties off for two weeks, was it not? A. 
No, these are not the minutes of the meeting.

Q. You say those are not accurate? A. No, sir, but I 
didn’t sign it.

Q. You never sign the minute, do you? A. No, sir.
Q. And Mr. King is secretary of the Disciplinary Com­

mittee? A. This is the first time I have seen the minutes.
Q. I will ask you did you cast a negative vote at the 

time the action was brought, I mean the complaint was 
brought before the Disciplinary Committee to lay Peter 
Wrenn and Glen Limbaugh off for two weeks each? A. 
At the beginning of the meeting we didn’t make a thorough 
investigation. I went down to investigate and the fellows 
would not talk to me but A1 Murray did and he got the 
information.

Q. And that is the way the members of the Disciplinary 
Committee make investigations? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the charging party doesn’t appear before the 
Disciplinary Committee? You investigate by personally 
contacting the people and taking statements and things 
like that? A. Yes, sir.

Leonard Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Cross



84

Q. And you didn’t vote against disciplining Peter Wrenn 
for two weeks'? A. I didn’t vote.

Mr. Forman: Mark this, please.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 9 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. You have been employed ten years by Acipco? A. 
Yes.

Q. When was the last time you were promoted? A. It 
all depends on what you mean by promotion.

Q. I am talking about moving up a pay grade. A. On 
January 13, 1965.

Q. And you took a test, did you not? A. I did. And I 
might state that I have never been upgraded to a 5 job.

Q. Well, you don’t know that there has been a vacancy 
available for that job? A. I do know men who had less 
senior service than I do have been moved to jobs of grade 
5 category.

Q. But you don’t know the other requirements of those 
jobs? A. I think I fulfill enough of the requirements.

Q. Have you filed some charges with EEOC? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Have you ever been disciplined for filing charges? A. 
I have not been disciplined, no, sir.

Mr. Forman: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. I believe you said that the—I refer you to Defendant’s 
Exhibit 8, in which it sets forth purported charges against 
Peter Wrenn. Was this handed to you at the Disciplinary 
Committee meeting? A. No, sir.

Leonard Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



85

Q. When did you first read those charges? A. This is 
the first time I have read them and I saw a copy somewhat 
similar to the one Peter had.

Q. Are you familiar with the letter he wrote dated July 
13, 1967 ? A. I saw it after he wrote it. I was off on an 
emergency leave at the time. When I returned to work I 
saw it.

Q. You didn’t have anything to do with drafting that 
letter? A. No, sir, it was all new to me when I came 
back.

Q. Was the letter presented to you in the Disciplinary 
Committee meeting? A. It was read to me, yes, sir.

Q. At the committee meeting? A. Eight.
Q. And do you recall whether the letter said that the 

company had bribed or the company caused to be bribed 
a public official of the United States Government? A. I 
don’t know what it said now.

Q. Isn’t it usual and customary that the Disciplinary 
Committee investigate charges before a hearing is had in 
the Disciplinary Committee? A. Whenever the Disciplin­
ary Committee comes up the two Chairmen of each Board 
are to appoint men to go out and investigate the situation 
and after they get their findings together, all the necessary 
data we return back to Mr. King and he sets a time for the 
meeting.

Q. Had you ever received a letter directly from manage­
ment before at any Disciplinary Committee meeting con­
cerning the discharging of an employee in your capacity 
as a member of the Disciplinary Committee? A. No, sir.

Q. This is the first time this happened to you? A. That’s 
right.

Q. And did your committee make an investigation in the

Leonard Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



86

Peter Wrenn case as is customary in the Disciplinary Com­
mittee? A. No, sir.

Q. They were instructed by management to bring in a 
verdict of this sort, is that right? A. Well, in this particu­
lar case, as I stated before, we were called down and told 
we were going to have a Disciplinary Committee meeting 
on Peter Wrenn. There was nothing to investigate because 
management had reached its decision and the only thing we 
had to do was go in and sit down.

Q. But you did vote and you voted against it, right? A. 
Bight.

Q. I think there was confusion about what was said by 
Mr. Wrenn and by you about upgrading. What do you un­
derstand what is meant by upgrading of a man? A. Well, 
according to qualifications. According to the standards 
they fit they are upgraded.

Q. Do you understand one of the meanings of upgrading 
of a Negro was to move from a Negro job to a so-called 
white job at Acipco? A. That might be true.

Q. No, is that an interpretation that has been had at 
Acipco among the Negro employees? A. Yes, sir, the ma­
jority.

Q. You say that is the understanding of the majority of 
the Negro employees? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Adams: That’s all.

(Witness Excused)

The Court: Next witness.

Leonard Lewis—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



87

M e . J ames B askeeville, being first duly sworn, was ex­
amined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. State your name, please. A. James Baskerville.
Q. Where do you live? A. 1036—85th Street, North.
Q. Are you employed at Acipco? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been so employed? A. Fifteen 

years.
Q. Are you a member of the Auxiliary Board at Acipco? 

A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long have you been on that Board? A. Three 

years.
Q. Are you also a member of the Equal Job Opportunity 

Committee composed of Negro employees of Acipco? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Were you present when a letter was constructed to 
Mr. Shulman and signed by Peter Wrenn as Chairman of 
the Auxiliary Committee and president of the Equal Job 
Opportunity Committee? A. I was present, yes, sir.

Q. Will you tell us, Mr. Baskerville, whether that letter 
was approved by you and read over by you before it was 
signed? A. It was approved by the whole committee.

Q. Tell the Court how that letter was constructed with 
reference to who composed it and got it prepared for mail­
ing? A. I can’t recall what happened, but the letter was 
brought into the committee and after they—we read it over 
and looked at it and that was it.

Q. Was that the letter of the committee or not? A. Yes.
Q. This committee was organized on what date? A. 

March 30, 1965.
Q. Were you present at that meeting? A. Yes, sir.

James Baskerville—for Plaintiffs—Direct



88

Q. And was that at the 18th Street Branch of the 
Y.M.C.A.? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I believe you sat and listened to the testimony in the 
case and were you ever present at a meeting at which Mr. 
Daniels stated 75 percent of the Negroes would be elimi­
nated from the company? A. Repeat that.

Q. I said were you present at a meeting in which Mr. 
Daniels, the president of Acipco, stated 75 percent of the 
Negroes would be eliminated from Acipco? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where was that and when was that? A. I can’t re­
call what date hut it was at the American Cast Iron Pipe 
Company.

Q. Who was present, do you know? A. Management. 
They brought in part of management. I don’t recall who 
all. I recall Mr. Daniels and Mr. Copeland.

Q. Do you know what occasion that was for this state­
ment? What was being discussed at the meeting? A. 1 
can’t recall all that was said. He had it all wrote out. It 
was on equal employment.

Q. You were discussing equal employment opportunity 
at that time? A. We didn’t discuss equal opportunity but 
we discussed the complaints being filed.

Q. About equal employment? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you present at any time when Mr. Daniels 

stated about the complaints of equal employment opportun­
ity that the Courts decided it once and would decide it 
again? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When was that? A. I don’t recall the dates.
Q. Who was present when that was said? A. Some of 

the Board of Management.
Q. Some of the Board of Management? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Anyone else present? A. The Auxiliary Board?

James Baskerville—for Plaintiffs—Direct



89

Q. All of the Auxiliary Board? A. The colored Auxil­
iary Board, yes, sir.

Mr. Adams I think that’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. Forman:

Q. What was said with reference to the courts have 
decided something once before and would have to decide 
it again? Will you repeat that part of the conversation? 
A. Repeat your question.

Q. I am asking you what—you said something about Mr. 
Daniels saying the courts have decided something once 
before and would have to decide it again.

What did Mr. Daniels say in that regard? Decide what? 
A. I don’t recall what was said. I don’t have the note of 
what he said.

Q. You mean what Mr. Daniels was reading from? A. 
He said—he had some paper. Every time he come up, he 
always had.

Q. Do you recall when that was? A. No, sir.
Q. You have no idea? A. I don’t have no idea what date 

it was. Since I have been on the Auxiliary Board.
Q. And you have been on it three years? A. Yes, this 

is my third year.
Q. You just recall something about a court decision, but 

you don’t know what it had reference to, do you? You have 
no idea what it was about, do you? A. I don’t recall what 
was said at that particular meeting.

Q. All right. Let me ask you about the other thing that 
you were asked about, the 75 per cent thing. What was 
said about 75 per cent? A. Let’s see, after he came up and 
give his views on this complaint that was filed and what 
not—

James Baskerville—for Plaintiffs—Cross



90

Q. Which complaint! A. Various complaints filed by 
this committee.

Q. Which complaints filed by the committee? A. I don’t 
recall which one.

Q. All right, go ahead. A. You got me messed up. Go 
hack over that again.

Q. I want you to quote as best you could your reference 
to what Mr. Daniels—what you said that he said about some 
75 per cent figure. A. I heard him use that expression to 
the Auxiliary Board.

Q. Repeat it, the best you recall, what he said. A. He 
said, as I recall, 75 per cent of the Niggers would be 
eliminated.

Q. By what? A. I don’t recall what all he read up 
there that day. In essence that is all I remember.

Q. Was that the last time Mr. Daniels met with the 
colored Auxiliary Board? A. No, he met sometimes when 
we had meetings around June and Christmas.

Q. He has been back to the Board and met with all the 
other Boards and talked about the operating results of the 
company and what bonuses had been earned? A. That’s 
right.

Q. But the time you have reference to Mr. Daniels read­
ing something to the Auxiliary Board, you say Mr. Cope­
land was there? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that is the last time Mr. Daniels met with the 
Auxiliary Board and on that occasion he made some refer­
ence about the Courts having decided something once and 
would have to decide it again and then made some state­
ment about 75 percent? A. Yes, sir, that is what he said.

Q. This letter of July 13, 1967, where were you when that 
was presented to you? This letter Peter Wrenn wrote to

James Baskerville—for Plaintiffs— Cross



91

Stephen Shulman. The letter for which he was fired? 
Where did yon first see this letter? A. In our meeting.

Q. Where was that? A. At the 18th Street Branch of 
the Y.M.C.A.

Q. What day was that? A. I couldn’t recall.
Q. Do you have any recollection? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you recall what day of the week it was? A. No.
Q. What was presented to you? A. The letter was pre­

sented to the Committee.
Q. It was already typed up or was it in handwriting? 

What form did it come to you at that time? A. I don’t 
recall how it came.

Q. Who presented it to the meeting? A. The Chairman.
Q. Who was that? A. Mr. Wrenn.
Q. Who else was present on that committee? A. I don’t 

recall how many committeemen were there that day.
Q. Do you have a recollection of anybody being there 

other than yourself? A. The Chairman was there and I 
recall Mr. Jordan. I think the whole committee was there 
that day. I don’t recall who all was there.

Q. Do you recall anyone more than the ones you named? 
A. I don’t recall exactly how many were there that day.

Q. I am asking you to give me everyone you recall being 
there at that time. A. I don’t recall.

Q. You don’t recall? A. No ,sir.
Q. Did you approve the letter? A. The committee did.
Q. Did you as one member of that committee approve 

the letter? A. The committee approved this letter.
Q. But did you as a member of the committee approve 

the letter? A. I am saying the committee approved the 
letter.

Q. Was there anybody there who cast a dissenting vote 
about the letter ? A. I  don’t recall, I couldn’t tell you.

James Baskerville—for Plaintiffs— Cross



92

Q. You don’t recall approving it yourself? You don’t re­
call whether you approved it or disapproved it? A. No, 
sir.

Q. What evidence did you have or information that the 
company was receiving some type of cover-up protection? 
A. I couldn’t answer that.

Q. You had no evidence at all, did you? What evidence 
did you have at that meeting that “somebody somehow got 
to Mr. Hollingsworth. We don’t know what was done or 
offered him but we do know it had to have been something.” 

What evidence did you have of any bribe or payoff of 
Mr. Hollingsworth? A. I don’t have anything on that.

Q. Without any evidence of anything like that you ap­
proved this letter of July 13,1967, as a member of that com­
mittee? A. I am saying the committee approved this let­
ter.

Q. At that time you were a member of the committee ? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Was it submitted to the Board, the Auxiliary Board? 
A. I don’t recall.

Q. It purports to be signed by the Chairman of the 
Auxiliary Board of the American Cast Iron Pipe Company. 
As an Auxiliary Board member did you approve this letter ? 
A. I don’t recall doing it.

Q. This meeting wasn’t on company property but at the 
18th Street Y.M.C.A.? A. Yes, sir.

Q. The Auxiliary Board always meets at the company? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And has twelve members? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And all twelve members were at the 18th Street 

Y.M.C.A. ? A. I don’t recall.
Q. Ho you recall that everybody was there, don’t you? 

A. I don’t recall the Auxiliary Board was there.

James Baskerville—for Plaintiffs— Cross



93

Q. Did you have a formal Auxiliary Board meeting over 
at the 18th Street Y.M.C.A. when this letter was presented? 
A. I repeat that.

Q. Did you have a formal meeting of the Auxiliary Board 
at the 18th Street Y.M.C.A.? A. No.

Mr. Forman: That’s all.
Mr. Adams: That’s all.

(Witness Excused)

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Direct

Me. H enry G oodgame, called as a witness, being duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. State your name, please. A. Henry Goodgame.
Q. And your address? A. Route 1, Box 500, South Gold- 

wire.
Q. How long have you been employed at American Cast 

Iron Pipe Company? A. Thirteen years and ten months.
Q. Are you a member of any Board with the company? 

A. Yes.
Q. What Board? A. Member of the Auxiliary Board, 

the colored Auxiliary Board.
Q. Were you also a member of the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Committee at Acipco? A. I am.
Q. And were you present when the letter of July 13,1967, 

was formulated at the 18th Street Branch of the Y.M.C.A.? 
A. I was.

Q. Will you tell the Court and these people present to­
day just how this letter was composed and gotten together 
and finally approved? A. There was a general discussion 
and the hesitation of the Commission as such to try to 
remedy our problem at Acipco which also consisted of the



94

discharge of our Chairman, Mr. Wrenn, and after a con­
siderable amount of discussion a letter was drafted to the 
effect that because of our position we had no other choice 
than to seek for some aid from the Commission itself.

Q. Was there considerable discussion about how the let­
ter read? A. That is correct.

Q. Who was present at the time the letter was drafted 
and finally finalized? A. There was the committee.

Q. Can you name the people? A. Mr. Wrenn, the Chair­
man of the Committee, and I was present, Mr. John Fill­
more, Mr. Jordan, and I believe Mr. Booker was present. 
I can’t recall all of them.

Q. Was Mr. Baskerville present? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And Mr. Leonard Lewis? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How many members on that committee? A. Well, 

we have approximately fourteen members, I believe. How­
ever, some are not active. Some became frightened because 
of some things—intimidation actually throughout the shop.

Q. How many members of the Auxiliary Board were on 
the Committee of Equal Job Opportunity? A. We have 
six members of the Auxiliary Board that served on the 
Committee of Equal Job Opportunity.

Q. Were those six persons present at the time this letter 
was considered? A. I don’t recall whether all six were 
present. I could say the majority at least. I can’t recall 
whether they were all present at the time or not.

Q. Would you say most of them were there? A. Yes, I 
would say that.

Q. In this letter you stated you believed someone got to 
some federal official. Hid you state what was the thinking 
of the committee when it stated that particular thing? A. 
Yes, as I stated, there had been a considerable amount of 
discussion concerning the issue, the facts that had been

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs— Direct



95

brought out by our previous report, concerning the discus­
sions with Dr. Brimm, the incident with Dr. Brimm, and 
also the meeting held by the employees called by the vice- 
president and works manager who spoke to the employees 
at that time concerning how things vrould be leveled off and 
there would not be any need to pursue integrating the facili­
ties or any other things at Acipco including job promotion, 
et cetera.

Q. What meeting are you referring to! A. This is the 
meeting that we had prior to the drafting of this letter.

Q. What date was that ? A. This was after the discharge 
of our Chairman, I believe.

Q. After the discharge of Peter Wrenn about September 
5, 1967? A. I believe so.

Q. There was a meeting of what type? A. This was the 
committee meeting we met at the Y concerning—prior to 
drafting of this letter.

Q. You mean your committee met? A. Yes, sir, and this 
discussion was discussing a summary of what had hap­
pened through the year, well, say two or three years prior 
to that time when Mr. Copeland met with the employees.

Q. Mr. Forman asked Mr. Baskerville about the statement 
he said he heard made by Mr. Daniels and that is that the 
Courts decided this one time and the Courts will decide it 
again. Did you hear that statement? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you tell us where it was ? A. This was in a meet­
ing of the Auxiliary Board, as I recall, the last meeting that 
the Executive Body met with the Board at this time which 
consisted of Mr. Farlow, Mr. Copeland, the vice-president, 
and the president, Mr. Daniels, and I believe Mr. Phelps.

Q. When was this meeting? A. This was during a regu­
lar session of the Auxiliary Board which we met periodi­
cally once a month.

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Direct



96

Q. Do you know what year this was? A. Last year. I 
believe that’s right, but I am not sure. This is my second 
year. It was last year. That was my first year. I have been 
on that committee two years.

Q. Well, did you know this matter had been in court be­
fore? I mean the question of job discrimination? A. No, 
this is the first time we had filed suit.

Q. What was Mr. Daniels referring to when he said the 
Courts had decided it before? A. Well, the Board made 
the recommendation—the Auxiliary Board had made a 
recommendation to the Board of Management concerning 
the changes in rates, job descriptions, promotions, et cetera, 
and those things. However, there has been letters we had 
also sent to them concerning—

Q. There has been no court case about job discrimination 
before, has there? A. No, sir.

Q. Was there a court case about the structure of the 
organization of the plant? A. Yes, sir.

Q. What court was that? A. This was the District Court 
of Alabama. I believe it was Judge Bowron back in 1942 
had ruled concerning the will of Mr. Eagan, which was at 
that time, as I remember, had been presented. The will it­
self or the codicil to the will itself had not been contested 
but the plan had been laid to this court to define a means of 
representation to the Negro employees and out of this came 
the Auxiliary Board.

Q. And this is what you understood Mr. Daniels meant 
by the Court deciding this once before? A. Well, that is 
true. It could be that when he stated this. That is my be­
lief, but whatever was done at Acipco in the light of better 
opportunity toward Negroes, it would be decided by the 
Courts. This was the impression I got.

Q. Were you present at the meeting at which Mr. Daniels

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs— Direct



97

stated to Mr. Wrenn he had caused him a lot of trouble? 
A. No, I wasn’t at that meeting.

Mr. Adams: I think that’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. Forman:

Q. Do you recall this—did you ever see the letter of July 
13, 1967, from Peter Wrenn to Mr. Stephen Shulman before 
it was mailed? A. Concerning what?

Q. Accusing the company of bribing Mr. Hollingsworth 
and Dr. Brimm. A. This was a conclusion drawn by some 
officials.

Q. I see. Had you ever seen that letter before it was 
mailed? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you help compose it? A. This was the discus­
sion consisting of a series of ideas and thoughts.

Q. Where did the discussion take place? A. At the 
Y.M.C.A.

Q. What day was that? A. I can’t recall, but it was on 
Sunday.

Q. Do you recall what month it was? A. No, I can’t re­
call.

Q. Do you know what was discussed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was discussed? A. The fact that the relation­

ship with Dr. Brimm, Dr. Toles, and the many agents that 
came to Acipco to work out the problems or discuss the 
problems, and because of the incident that had occurred at 
this time, the statements that Dr. Brimm stated.

Q. What statements were those? A. He was asking the 
Chairman did he write to Washington and tell them that 
they had sent a G.D. biased s-o-b down to investigate—

Q. Who said that? A. This was Dr. Brimm made the 
statement in the presence of our Chairman. The Chair­
man conveyed this to the committee.

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Cross



98

Q. Was this made in your presence? A. I stated that it 
was in the presence of the Chairman.

Q. But my question was whether it was in your presence? 
A. No, it wasn’t in my presence.

Mr. Forman: I move it be excluded.

A. You asked me what was the discussion about.

The Court: Sustain the objection.

Q. Did you say you approved the letter? A. That is 
correct.

Q. The language in it? A. Well, now, what happened 
is after the discussion it was drafted.

Q. Who drafted it ? A. It was drafted by the Chairman.
Q. Who is the Chairman or was the Chairman? A. Peter 

J. Wrenn.
Q. And who typed it? A. It was done at the auspices of 

the committee to get our typist to type it.
Q. And who is that? A. Mrs. Walker.
Q. Mrs. Bernice Walker? A. I can’t recall the first 

name.
Q. When was it typed? A. I can’t recall.
Q. Was it typed when you first saw it? A. It was 

sketched.
Q. Sketched in longhand or typing? A. Just sketched.
Q. What do you mean by sketched? A. It was hand­

written.
Q. Where is the handwritten memorandum? A. I can’t 

recall. I suppose in our records.
Q. Do you know where it is? A. No, not at this particu­

lar time.

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Cross



99

Q. Do you know in whose handwriting it was! A. No, I 
don’t.

Q. You don’t have any idea who wrote it, I take it? A. I 
can say this, that as stated, it consisted of a series of 
thoughts and ideas. Who was doing the writing at that 
particular time, I can’t recall.

Q. These thoughts and ideas were discussed by the com­
mittee? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And then was this letter of July 13, 1967, formulated 
by the committee? A. That is correct.

Q. Who put it together? A. I won’t state that. I can 
say this, it was a formulation of thoughts and ideas coming 
from the committee.

Q. What information or evidence did you have or do you 
personally have of any cover-up protection the company has 
received from any government official? A. The only thing 
that we discussed in that letter is the fact after the investi­
gation by Dr. Brimm there was an employee meeting called 
by our vice-president and at this meeting he stated Dr. 
Brimm was satisfied and there would be nothing else to be 
done and new charges filed would have to be filed with Dr. 
Brimm.

Q. When was this meeting and what vice-president are 
you talking about? A. Mr. Copeland.

Q. Sitting over here? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Copeland called 
this meeting. This was done in June of 1964, I believe, just 
—I think a day or two before leaving on his vacation. About 
a day before going on vacation.

Q. When? A. In 1964. I think it was prior to the Civil 
Bights Act.

Q. What evidence did you personally have of any cover- 
up? A. This was it. The only thing that we had referred 
to there was the fact, as Mr. Copeland made that statement 
that he did, that there wouldn’t be any need to make any

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Cross



100

more charges because it was all right with Dr. Brimm ac­
cording to the situation that he had—that were in ex­
istence at Acipco at that time which we knew, the com­
mittee knew that needed to be considered at Acipco such 
as job promotion, job description, upgrading, integra­
tion of facilities such as bath houses and cafeterias and 
dispensaries, and other things that needed to be considered.

Q. I mean what evidence did you have of cover-up pro­
tection being sought by the company from Dr. Brimm or 
anybody else? A. I stated the facts that because of the 
statements that was stated by our vice-president, Mr. Cope­
land, that nothing to be done or nothing rather would be 
done except filing the charges with Dr. Brimm.

Q. You said that was in 1964 that Mr. Copeland made 
that statement? A. Yes, sir, it was.

Q. Since 1964 you personally have filed at least a half a 
dozen charges, haven’t you? A. Oh, yes.

Q. And you have filed them and at the time this letter 
was written July 13, 1967, you knew you had filed charges? 
A. Yes.

Q. And that they had been investigated? A. Bight, but 
nothing was done.

Q. And with this information and knowledge you ap­
proved a statement that the company had bought the govern­
ment officials? A. I didn’t say that.

Q. Is that what the letter said? A. No, I didn’t.
Q. But the complaint is of receiving some type of cover- 

up protection? A. Didn’t say nothing about buying it.
Q. Let me turn this page. It states “ In summary, we be­

lieve somebody, somehow got to Mr. Holliway who investi­
gated the case. We don’t know what was done or offered 
him but we do know that it had to have been something, 
otherwise, your decision would not have been so far off 
base. Along this line we had similar experiences with Dr.

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Cross



101

Hugh Brimm.” A. Where did it say anything about buy­
ing?

Q. It states, “We don’t know what was done or offered 
him.” A. Did it say anything about buying?

Q. Well, it certainly seems to me it said that. What does 
that mean? Offered him what? A. That could have been 
some type of written agreement or oral agreement since 
Mr. Copeland did mention the fact that everything had 
worked out with Dr. Brimm.

Q. You have some legal experience, don’t you? Didn’t 
you take law? A. I have a law degree.

Q. You have a law degree? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are you sort of an advisor? A. I wasn’t acting 

in a legal capacity.
Q. Well, what information or what evidence did you 

have that Mr. Hollingsworth had been paid something— 
been offered something for his decision? A. Your ques­
tion states being paid and buying or bought. I don’t recall 
anything in that letter to that effect.

Q. Did you compose the letter? A. No, sir.
Q. When you approved the letter or when it was formu­

lated did you know what it had reference to? A. Yes, sir, 
I just stated the fact about the experience that we have 
had with—

Q. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the 
letter that was addressed to Mr. Shulman for some reason 
and what was that in connection with? A. Because some­
thing needed to be done at Acipco.

Q. At the meeting held in which this letter was formu­
lated was anybody there other than the employees of 
Acipco? A. No, I can’t recall any.

Q. Do you recall what employees were there? You have 
named some of them. Do you recall whether Leonard Lewis 
was there or not? A. No, sir.

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Cross



102

Q. Anybody else employed by Acipco? A. I can’t recall.
Q. Anybody there from the N.A.A.C.P.? A. No, sir, I 

know that for a fact.

Mr. Forman: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. Calling your attention to this letter of July 13, did 
you understand this letter to say these things had been 
done or you believed them to have been done? A. Nothing 
in there made any statement of fact—nothing made any 
statement of fact.

Q. After the letter was—the thoughts and ideas con­
gealed and were put in this form and then did the com­
mittee approve it? A. That’s right.

Q. Mr. Goodgame, the conditions you complain about in 
the suit, that is with Dr. Brimm, when he was with the 
President’s Committee, are those conditions basically at 
Acipco at the present time? A. I would say they are par­
tially.

Q. What do you mean by that? A. Well, we have not 
got into the bath houses yet, which would be the first of 
the year we are to be assigned, I think—I understand some 
are being assigned an integrated bath house. There has 
been token or de facto method of promotion in jobs out 
there. And the testing policy has been instituted to nar­
row the possibility of many Negroes receiving jobs.

The Court: The Court is in recess until nine- 
thirty in the morning.

(Court was in recess from 3.30 p.m. until 9:35 
a.m., December 19, 1967.)

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Redirect



103

Henry Goodgame—for Plaintiffs—Recross 

December 19, 1967

C ourt R econvened P ursuant to A djournment

The Court: All right, gentlemen, resume where 
we left oft yesterday.

Examination by Mr. Adams (Continued):

Q. Mr. Goodgame, I left off yesterday with the question 
to you to the effect that are the conditions at Acipco basi­
cally the same as when you and others made a complaint 
which was lodged with Dr. Brimm.

Mr. Forman: We object to that as calling for 
testimony by comparison.

The Court: Overrule.
Mr. Forman: We except.

A. Yes, basically the same.
Q. Will you state what those conditions are at Acipco 

now! A. There are job descriptions, job promotions, that 
are segregated. The bath house, and we are also asking 
for better job opportunities.

Q. You mean promotions! A. Yes, sir.
Q. I believe you testified you had a law degree. What do 

you mean by that! A. I received a Bachelor of Law De­
gree from the LaSalle University of Chicago.

Q. Is that a correspondence school! A. A correspond­
ence school, yes, sir.

Mr. Adams: I believe that’s all.

Recross Examination by Mr. Forman-.

Q. The bath house facility change is being undertaken 
now! A. That is true.



104

Q. And everybody has had to take their clothes out of 
the hath houses and now during the Christmas vacation 
they are being re-assigned on the basis of—alphabetically 
by name by department, is that so? A. Yes, that is what 
we were told.

Q. Have you filed some of these charges? A. I did.
Q. And since the charges have been made you have been 

upgraded personally? A. In the respct of upgrading, I 
don’t understand. The fact I have moved to another job, 
yes, but to be upgraded, I am not receiving that rate the 
man received prior to that job since he was a white boy.

Q. But were you personally upgraded? A. I do not con­
sider it so.

Q. You didn’t get more money? A. Yes, sir, but not as 
much as the white boy received prior to my getting the job.

Q. How long have you been on the job? A. A year. A 
year the first of the year.

Q. How long was the other fellow on the job when he 
received the top rate, if you know? A. I suppose he had 
been on that job about six or seven months.

Q. Ho you know how long he had been on the job? A. 
I am stating now he had been on the job approximately 
six or seven months.

Q. And what was his name? A. I know one named Don 
and the other named Robert is all I know.

Q. You say two of them on the job? A. Yes.
Q. At the same time? A. Right.
Q. Don and John? A. Robert.
Q. What was his job? A. Hot Metal Dink Operator.

Mr. Forman: I believe that’s all.
Mr. Adams: That’s all.
The Court: Next witness.

Henry Goodgame— for Plaintiffs—Recross



105

Mr. Adams: That is our case, Your Honor. 

(Witness Excused)
The Court: All right, first witness for the defen­

dant.
Mr. Forman: We would like to call Mr. Copeland.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct

M r . F rank  H. Copeland, called as a witness, being duly 
sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Direct Examination by Mr. Forman-.

Q. State your name, please. A. Frank H. Copeland.
Q. By whom are you employed? A. American Cast Iron 

Pipe Company.
Q. What capacity? A. Vice-President and Works Man­

ager.
Q. How long have you held that position? A. Since 

1952. Works Manager in 1952 and Vice-President in 1955.
Q. How long have you worked for Acipco? A. Thirty- 

three years in February.
Q. Would you state to the Court just briefly and in gen­

eral terms what your duties are? A. My job is in charge 
of the production, operation of the plant.

Q. Does your job entail any duties in reference to per­
sonnel policies? A. Yes, the Personnel Department is un­
der me.

Q. Is under your supervision and control? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Copeland, are you familiar with the disciplinary 

action taken against Peter Wrenn both in connection with 
the layoff and later with discharge? A. Yes, sir.

Q. When did the first incident take place? A. In Sep­
tember, I believe, September 10, 1965.



106

Q. Would you look at your file or do you remember that 
it was in ’66? A. Eight.

Q. September 10, 1966? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was that a Saturday? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And on the next Monday was an investigation made 

of the incident? A. Yes, we—it was reported to me on 
Monday that Glen Limbaugh was in a brawl there in the 
Mono-cast Plant and it was reported by Mr. Hairston.

Q. And who is he? A. Superintendent of the Mono-cast 
Department.

Q. Was some statement taken from Mr. Limbaugh? A. 
Yes, Mr. Hairston sent for Mr. Limbaugh and he came to 
my office and Mr. Hairston and I discussed what hap­
pened.

Q. Did he then make a written statement? A. Yes, he 
made a written statement.

Q. Is that a copy of the written statement? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: We would like to introduce this as 
the next exhibit.

Mr. Adams: I object to it on the ground of hear­
say. The person is not here to be cross-examined.

The Court: Overrule.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 10 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Was Peter Wrenn contacted about this incident also? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he sign a statement or did he make any sort of 
statement? A. He made a statement to Mr. Hairston and 
I about what happened.

Q. Look at that and I will ask you if that is a memoran­
dum of the statement made to you by Peter Wrenn? A.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



107

Yes, that is the memorandum we made of the meeting with 
Mr. Wrenn.

Mr. Forman: I would like to have that identified 
as the next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 11 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, were other employees contacted in ref­
erence to that matter? A. Yes, in discussing the matter 
with Mr. Limbaugh he mentioned the fact if we didn’t be­
lieve what he said to talk to some other people in that 
area. Mr. Hairston asked three men who worked in that 
general area to come by and talk with us and we talked 
with them and they did give us statements.

Q. Did they give you written statements? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you if that is a statement you received 

from Ed Eials? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: We would like to identify this as 
our next exhibit.

Mr. Adams: Same objection.
The Court: Overrule.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 12 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. The next is signed by Charlie J. Bobbins. Is that a 
statement given to you by Mr. Bobbins? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: We would like to identify this as 
the next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 13 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant— Direct



108

Q. And one signed by Jack Praytor. A. That’s right.
Q. Is this a written statement given to you by Jack 

Praytor? A. Yes, sir.

The Court: Same objection and same ruling.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 14 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, were there some marks on a piece of 
equipment, crayon marks, or chalk marks, in the vicinity 
of where Glen Limbaugh and Peter Wrenn worked? A. 
Yes, the electrical control or the Rheostat where the oper­
ator stands, there were chalk marks on the Rheostat.

Q. Any reference made to these chalk marks? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. What reference was made? A. Glen Limbaugh stated 
when Peter Wrenn came back to the casting machine he 
wanted to know what white s.o.b. put the marks on there.

Q. Did you have a sketch made of the chalk marks on 
the Rheostat? A. Yes, one of the men on the investigating 
committee, the Discipline Committee, made a sketch of the 
chalk marks.

Q. Did you see any chalk marks? A. I didn’t personally 
see them, no.

Q. Following that investigation, was any charge made 
against Peter Wrenn? A. Yes, after the discussion with 
Glen Limbaugh and the three other men who worked in 
that area, it was the feeling that Peter was involved in the 
brawl and Mr. Hairston sent for Peter and he came to my 
office and we talked to him about it. And Peter was laid off 
pending action of the Discipline Committee.

Q. Was some action taken against Glen Limbaugh? A 
Yes.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



109

Q. What action was taken against G-len Limbaugh! A. 
Glen Limbaugh was laid off two weeks without pay.

Q. How was that done! What body did that! A. The 
Discipline Committee handled the case as they do in all 
plant rule violations and Mr. Hairston, the superintendent 
of the department made the recommendation to the Dis­
cipline Committee that he be laid off for a period of two 
weeks without pay.

Q. And was Glen Limbaugh laid off two weeks for this 
incident! A. He was.

Q. Looking at this paper dated September 13, 1967, ad­
dressed to Mr. J. C. King and signed by George Hairston, 
do you recognize that paper! A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is that! A. That is the recommendation to the 
Disciplinary Committee by Mr. Hairston. That was to lay 
Peter Wrenn off.

Q. This is in reference to Peter Wrenn only! A. Yes, 
sir.

Mr. Forman: Mark this, please.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 15 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Did the Disciplinary Committee consider the matter! 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. What action was taken, Mr. Copeland! A. It was 
an affirmative action that both men be laid off two weeks 
without pay.

Q. What was the vote on the disciplinary action meted 
out by the Disciplinary Committee! A. There were no 
negative votes.

Q. Looking at Defendant’s Exhibit 9, it says, “A meeting 
of the committee for handling company rule violations—”

Is that the Disciplinary Committee! A. Yes, sir.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



110

Q. It met on September 14, 1966, and this report is over 
the signature of J. C. King. Is that a true and correct 
copy of the minutes of that action taken on the rule viola­
tion charged against Glen Limbaugh and Peter Wrenn? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Copeland, following that action was a complaint 
made with EEOC? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Let me show you this Xerox copy of a complaint 
dated September 13, 1966, and the signature is indistinct 
on this copy.

Do you recognize that? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that? A. The complaint filed by Peter 

Wrenn in reference to the two weeks’ layoff.

Mr. Forman: We would like to have this identi­
fied as the next exhibit number.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 16 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, was an investigation made by any 
representative of EEOC? A. Yes, Mr. Hollingsworth from 
the New Orleans office.

Q. Will you briefly state what investigation was made by 
him, to your knowledge? A. He came to the plant first 
and met with Mr. Daniel, the president of the company, 
and stated the reason for his being there, and submitted 
the charge against the company and after talking to Mr. 
Daniel he took him into the plant and showed him what he 
wanted to see and what he needed, and we furnished what­
ever materials he needed and also made people available 
to him for the investigation.

Q. What material did he request and what materials

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



I l l

were furnished to him? A. He wanted a copy of Mr. 
Wrenn’s record.

Q. Did you furnish him a copy of that? A. Yes, sir, 
gave him whatever materials he asked for.

Q. His personnel record? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Does that record have any—in the past infractions of 

plant rules? A. Yes, sir, back in 1950 he was laid off for 
a period of two weeks for being involved in a light or a 
brawl.

Q. Were there any other disciplinary actions taken 
against him? A. Yes, sir, he was laid off for a period of 
two weeks at that time.

Q. I mean following that were there any other rule in­
fractions, any letters of warning, or anything like that? 
Reprimands is what I have reference to. A. Yes, sir, there 
are some letters in the record but no action has been taken.

Mr. Adams: I object to that, the record would be 
the best evidence.

Q. Do you have his record? A. Yes, sir.
Q. All right, let’s get his record out.

Mr. Copeland, let me direct your attention to this let­
ter, Inter-organization correspondence to you from Mr. 
George Hairston, dated March 25, 1965.

Is this a reprimand to Peter Wrenn? A. Yes.
Q. And was a copy of this furnished to Mr. Hollings­

worth? A. I am not sure what he took but whatever he 
wanted from the file we gave him. We made the complete 
personnel file available to Mr. Hollingsworth.

Q. You made the complaint file available to him? A. 
That’s right.

Frank E. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



112

Mr. Forman: Mark this, please.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 17 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Then a communication dated May 9, 1956, in connec­
tion with putting hot sand down somebody’s back.

Was this reprimand a part of his personnel file! A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Was this in the file available for Mr. Hollingsworth? 
A. Right.

Mr. Forman: We would like to have this marked.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 18 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Following Mr. Hollingsworth’s investigation, did you 
receive a communication from him that he had conducted the 
investigation and asked the company if it desired to make 
any statement of its position? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that letter dated November 9, 1966? A. Yes, he 
gave me that before he left. After he finished his investiga­
tion he handed me that.

Mr. Forman: I would like to introduce this as the 
next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 19 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Did you make such a reply, Mr. Copeland? A. Yes.
Q. Here is a letter—a copy of a letter dated November 

18, 1966, addressed to Mr. S. William Hollingsworth, which 
is not signed, but I will ask you is that the letter you sent, 
a copy of the letter you sent over your signature? A. Yes.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



113

Mr. Forman: We would like to have that marked 
as onr nest exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 20 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, was anything offered to Mr. Hollings­
worth by the company in the way of a bribe to influence him 
in his recommendation, whatever it was! A. No, sir.

Q. Later did you receive a communication from the Com­
mission, the finding of no reasonable cause and transmitting 
a copy of the decision of the Commission? A. Yes, sir.

Q. This letter dated May 29, 1967, is that the letter of 
transmittal? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: We would like to introduce that in 
evidence. The decision has already been introduced 
in evidence.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 21 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Now, following that did you receive a communication 
from the Commission that a petition or application for re­
consideration had been filed by Mr. Wrenn? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is this the notice you received dated August 9, 1967? 
A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: We would like to have this identified 
as the next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 22 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. And in that letter from Mr. Springer, I believe it is, 
states that Peter Wrenn had been requested to furnish

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



114

copies of any additional information lie might send to the 
Commission to the company.

Did you receive any copy of any communication from 
Peter Wrenn with reference to his condition for reconsid­
eration? A. We did not receive anything from him.

Q. Was the reply to that letter made out of our office at 
the direction of the company? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recognize this letter of August 18, 1967, over 
the signature of Mr. Burr? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: We would like that letter be given
the next exhibit number.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 23 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, were you later furnished a copy of the 
reply received by Mr. Burr from Mr. Springer to which was 
attached a copy of Peter Wrenn’s letter to Mr. Shulman 
dated July 13, 1967? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you recall when that was received in your office? 
A. Mr. Daniels received a copy from Mr. Burr and Mr. 
Daniels gave me a copy.

Q. Do you recall what date it was? A. As I recall, it 
wxas on August 31.

Q. Examine this letter dated August 25, 1967, to Mr. 
Samuel H. Burr, over the signature of Eric W. Springer, 
Director of Compliance, to which is attached this letter of 
July 13, 1967. A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is that the communication that came to your attention 
on August 31? A. Yes, sir.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



115

Mr. Forman: We would like to have this identi­
fied as our next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 24 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, following receipt of that communica­
tion, what action, if any, was taken by the company in 
reference to it? A. We notified the Disciplinary Com­
mittee after reading the letter and statements that had been 
made against the company and notified the Disciplinary 
Committee we had a discipline case to be considered. I 
made the recommendation to the committee since I had the 
correspondence.

Q. Let me ask you to look at this communication to Mr. 
J. C. King, Chairman of the Discipline Committee, over 
your signature.

Is that the recommendation made by you to the Discipli­
nary Committee? A. Yes, sir, that is the recommenda­
tion.

Q. September 4 was Labor Day? A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did the plant shut down for the holidays? A. 

At the end of the week and we were down through Monday 
and resumed operations Tuesday.

Q. Tuesday is the first work day after that? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Was an effort made to contact Peter Wrenn and in­
form him of the charge? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: We would like to have this communi­
cation by Mr. Copeland to Mr. King identified as 
our next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 25 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



116

Q. Will you state to the Court what effort was made? 
A. Yes, on Tuesday morning, I asked Mr. Hairston to 
come to my office and I acquainted him with the letter we 
received and asked him to contact Mr. Wrenn and have 
him come to my office to talk to him about it and he called 
him from my office about nine or nine-thirty, as I recall, and 
Mr. Wrenn stated to Mr. Hairston he was having work 
done on his automobile and he couldn’t come immediately 
but he would be there by eleven or eleven-thirty, and if he 
couldn’t make it he would call us.

Q. Hid he show up at the appointed hour? A. No, he 
did not.

Q. Was the meeting of the Disciplinary Committee ar­
ranged for? A. We had notified the Disciplinary Com­
mittee of a meeting after we had—we were planning to 
talk to Mr. Wrenn first but since he didn’t show up at the 
appointed time and we waited one hour and fifty minutes 
and didn’t hear from him, then we convened the Committee.

Q. Was this matter presented to the Committee? A. 
Yes.

Q. Mr. Copeland, would you state what occurred at the 
meeting of the Disciplinary Committee? A. Yes, since 
Mr. Wrenn was Chairman of the Auxiliary Board we asked 
the Vice-Chairman to sit in his place and the committee 
convened and I read the letter which we had received from 
Mr. Shulman and I also read the recommendation which you 
had just a moment ago. It was addressed to Mr. King, 
Chairman of the Committee.

Q. What action, if any, did the committee take ? A. The 
committee voted on it and we had one negative vote.

Q. How many men were sitting on the committee at that 
time? A. Two members of the Board of Operatives and

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



117

two members of the Auxiliary Board, myself, Mr. King and 
Mr. Phelps.

Q. Mr. Hairston there! A. Mr. Hairston was there as 
Departmental Superintendent of the department.

Q. Is that the composition of the Disciplinary Committee 
in line with the standing rules! A. Yes, Mr. Carter is 
also a member, my assistant, and I am not sure whether he 
was there. He was absent.

Q. I will show you what purports to be the minutes of the 
committee for handling company rule violations dated 
September 5, 1967, over the signature of S. P. Phelps, and 
I will ask you whether it is a correct copy of the minutes of 
that meeting on that occasion! A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: We -would like to have this intro­
duced as our next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 26 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, where the action of the Disciplinary 
Committee is not unanimous, what further procedure, if 
any, prevails! A. When the action of the committee is 
not unanimous, the matter is referred to the Board of 
Management for action.

Q. And was this matter referred to the Board of Manage­
ment! A. Yes, sir.

Q. The same day! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who makes up the Board of Management! A. Mr. 

Daniels, the president, Mr. MacKay, vice-president in 
charge of sales, Mr. Farlow, vice-president in charge of 
engineering, Mr. Foshee, secretary-treasurer, and myself.

Q. Is this the Board charged by the Board of Directors to 
run the business! A. Yes.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



118

Q. I will ask you to examine this document that says 
minutes of special meeting of Board of Management dated 
September 5, 1967, and I will ask you if this is a true and 
correct copy of the minutes of that meeting? A. It is.

Mr. Forman: We would like to have this identified 
as our next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 27 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, has any disciplinary action been taken 
against Peter Wrenn for filing any charges with the EEOC 
or the Executive Committee or any other government body 
charged with overseeing the rules and regulations or stat­
utes governing employment practices? A. None to my 
knowledge.

Q. If there had been such disciplinary action would it 
come to your attention? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And be under your control and supervision? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Has any man been disciplined at Acipco for filing any 
charge? A. None to my knowledge. None has come to my 
attention.

Q. Following that charge—I mean following his dis­
charge, did you receive a copy of a complaint filed by Peter 
Wrenn with the EEOC? A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: I believe that has been identified, 
if the Court please.

The Court: It is in evidence.
Gentlemen, for your information, let me say that 

we are going to have to terminate this hearing by 
twelve o’clock noon. I have re-scheduled a case I had

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



119

set for nine o’clock this morning for a night session 
and I have to wind this up by twelve.

Q. Mr. Copeland, Defendant’s Exhibit 7, that is a copy 
of the charge? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I will ask you whether or not following receipt of this 
charge it was investigated? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And who made the investigation? A. Dr. Wesley 
Harry.

Q. In connection with that investigation, has the com­
pany been requested to furnish a statement of its position 
to Dr. Harry, and I will ask you whether or not this state­
ment was furnished? A. Yes.

Q. Look at this letter dated September 23, to Dr. Harry, 
and state who he is. A. Dr. Harry was with the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission out of the New 
Orleans office but now he is in the local office here in Bir­
mingham.

Q. With what ? A. The Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission.

Q. Is this letter dated September 28, 1967, sent over your 
signature to Dr. Harry, is it the company’s position in con­
nection with the charge made by Peter Wrenn? A. Yes, 
sir.

Mr. Forman: We would like to have this identi­
fied.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 28 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Has there been any communication from the Commis­
sion in reference to this charge? A. No, sir, none.

Q. Have you received any notice from anybody that it 
has been determined or not determined? Has there been

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



120

any decision or determination of the charge by the Commis­
sion? A. No, not to my knowledge. We have had no word. 

Q. Mr. Copeland, let me he brief.
The first charge that came to you made by Peter Wrenn 

against the company was when? A. It was in October, I 
believe, 1963, or November, 1963.

Q. In a communication from Dr. Hugh Brimm? A. Yes, 
sir.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct

Mr. Forman: We would like to have this given the 
next exhibit number.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 29 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. It makes reference to a charge by Peter Wrenn. 
What was the charge made ? A. The charge that he had 

made application to us for a position in our Engineering 
Department.

Q. And had been turned down on that application? A. 
Yes, sir.

Q. Was that charge investigated by Dr. Brimm? A. Yes,
sir.

Q. Did you receive a communication that the charge was 
found to be without merit? A. Yes, sir.

Q. I will ask you to look at the letter from the head­
quarters of the Department of the Army, Office of the As­
sistant Secretary, Washington, D. C., over the signature of 
Colonel John S. Wilson, Director Fair Employment Pro­
gram, dated August 5, 1964.

Is that the letter? A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the notification of the determination? A. Yes,

sir.



121

Mr. Forman: We would like to have that marked.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 30 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Any disciplinary action taken against Peter Wrenn 
by reason of making that charge? A. No. sir.

Q. In fact, subsequent to that time was Peter Wrenn con­
sidered for upgrading and was he, in fact, given a higher 
rated job? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have other employees who made charges also been 
upgraded? A. Yes, sir.

Q. As the openings come along? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Copeland, you heard the testimony about the 

Committee of Equal Job Opportunity. Is there any official 
organization at Acipco known as that? A. I do not know 
anything about one.

Q. Have you been informed such a committee was organ­
ized by Peter Wrenn and others outside of the company 
premises? A. I have heard that, yes, sir.

Q. Was that committee at all discussed with Dr. Brimm 
in the presence of Peter Wrenn and Davis Jordan and 
others in the company office, your office, back in May, 1965 ? 
A. Yes, sir, it was discussed at a conference we had with 
five employees who stated they were members of such com­
mittee.

Q. Was inquiry made by Dr. Brimm or you of Peter 
Wrenn or Davis Jordan as to the identity of the committee? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the number comprising the committee? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Did you get any statement of the number comprising 
the committee at that conference? A. We asked how many

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



122

were present when the committee was organized and the 
statement was made some twelve or fifteen.

Q. Mr. Copeland, you then had a conference on July 5, 
1965, with Dr. Brimm and Mr. Weslie Toles? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. In reference to these charges that have been made that 
grew out of the initial charge by Peter Wrenn? A. Yes, 
sir.

Q. Did you receive a communication as to the status of 
the company’s position under the President’s Committee 
and the former practice prescribed by that Executive 
Order? A. Yes, sir, Mr. Toles came in with Dr. Brimm 
and they made a compliance review and investigation of 
the work Dr. Brimm had done up until that point.

Q. Did you later receive a communication specifying the 
areas in which changes needed to be made in Dr. Brimm and 
Mr. Tole’s opinion? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is the letter of July 26, 1965, under the signature of 
Dr. Brimm, addressed to you—is that a copy of that letter 
or that report? A. Yes, sir, that is the report.

Mr. Forman: We would like to have it identified 
as the next exhibit.

(Defendant’s Exhibit 31 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. Mr. Copeland, the testing program that was being re­
quired at that time of job applicants, will you state briefly 
how that came into being and the history of it? A. Yes, on 
Dr. Brimm’s initial visit with us he made a complete re­
view, compliance review of our company which had to do 
with employment practices and other things, and in check­
ing the employment practices he stated we were not in com­

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



123

pliance, that we had two standards, we were requiring our 
white applicants to have a high school education—

Q. How long had that been true of the white applicants! 
A. For a period of about seven or eight years.

Q. All right. A. And he stated we were not requiring 
any tests or qualifications for our Negro applicants other 
than passing the physical examination.

Mr. Daniels was out of town at the time and this discus­
sion was held at a meeting in our Auxiliary Board Confer­
ence Room, and Mr. Wrenn and another man who filed a 
charge at that time, Patrick King, were there in this con­
ference or discussion we had and Dr. Brimm said we would 
have to be standard in our employment practice, and he 
asked when Mr. Daniels returned to the plant from his trip 
that I discuss it with him and let him know what we would 
do in connection with the employment practice.

Q. Did you have a discussion and was the charge made! 
A. Yes, I discussed it wis Mr. Daniels when he returned and 
we informed Dr. Brimm that we would make our employ­
ment practice standard, and we would make the standard 
which we had been requiring of the white applicants which 
would be a high school education.

Q. And at that time and at the present time does Acipco 
do any recruiting at the high school level! A. No, sir.

Q. Where do you get your applicants! A. They make 
application at the plant.

Q. Walk in voluntarily off the street! A. Yes, sir. We 
take whoever is present.

Q. And all receive the same tests! A. Yes, sir.
Q. Has there been any layoff of colored employees! A. 

No, sir.
Q. Have you attended the meetings that Mr. Daniels— 

at which Mr. Daniels addressed the Board of Operatives! 
A. Yes, sir.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



124

Q. The last one? A. Yes, sir.
Q. I will ask you whether or not Mr. Daniels made any 

statement in reference to 75 percent of the employees would 
be laid off? 75 percent of the colored or Negro employees 
would be laid off? A. I have never heard him make that 
statement.

Q. Mr. Copeland, there has been some reference to a talk 
you made to the employees at the time or shortly after Dr. 
Brimm was there and would you state briefly what that talk 
was? A. Yes, I believe it was in June, 1965, before the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 became effective as far as the 
company was concerned. We informed the employees as to 
the new Civil Rights Act that would be in force in July and 
I talked to all employees at the plant, took them in groups 
and on a segregated basis with the permission of Dr. Brimm, 
and he thought it would be well that we have it on a segre­
gated basis so that the people attending could ask questions 
freely about the Civil Rights Act.

Q. Was that speech of yours written? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And had you been informed by Dr. Brimm as to what 

agency would enforce or supervise the enforcement of the 
Civil Rights Act? A. Yes, he stated that although the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be in effect shortly, that any 
complaints filed with them would be referred to the Com­
mittee of Equal Job Opportunity operating under 10925.

Q. You had been a federal contractor how long? A. 
Since the order had been in effect.

Q. Did you give that information to the employees ? A. 
Yes, I did.

Q. Mr. Copeland, a copy of that was being furnished to 
the investigators? A. I furnished a copy to Dr. Brimm.

Q. I will ask you whether or not Dr. Brimm was offered 
any sort of bribe or money or any inducement whatever to

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



125

make any determination of any variety that he made! A. 
None whatsoever, to my knowledge.

Q. Did Dr. Brimm have anything to do with the investiga­
tion of Peter Wrenn’s two week layoff! A. No, sir.

Q. Mr. Copeland, it is alleged in the application for 
temporary relief—let me read that to you, “An order re­
quiring the company to reinstate petitioner as an employee 
until a determination of this matter on appeal is made 
would not in any way interfere with the efficient operation 
of a company.”

Do you have an opinion of the effect, if any, of the rein­
statement of Peter Wrenn would have on the company! 
A. I think it would have an effect, yes, sir.

Q. What is that effect! A. I think the charge we placed 
against him was a valid charge and I believe our people 
feel so.

Q. Would his reinstatement have any effect on the morale 
or discipline of the work force! A. I think it would.

Q. What effect! A. I think it would have a bad effect.
Q. Mr. Copeland, is the Auxiliary Board still function­

ing at Acipco at the present time! A. Yes.
Q. And you have an acting Chairman! A. Yes.
Q. Who is that! A. Earl Murray.
Q. Mr. Copeland, since 1963, this initial charge, I will ask 

you whether or not there has been few or many promotions 
of Negro employees and upgrading in the jobs both those 
who made charges and those who have not made charges! 
A. You are talking about the total group!

Q. Yes. A. Since 1963!
Q. Yes. A. Yes, we have had many men that have been 

upgraded as a result of our testing program.
Q. Is all upgrading considered without regard to the race 

of the employee! A. Yes, sir.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Direct



126

Q. What is taken into consideration? A. The qualifica­
tions of the man, the job, the qualifications of the job, and 
if a man qualifies to fill it.

Mr. Forman: I believe that’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. Mr. Copeland, does Mr. Glen Limbaugh still work with 
the American Cast Iron Pipe Company? A. No, he does 
not.

Q. Was he finally discharged permanently by the com­
pany? A. No, he quit of his own accord.

Q. Did he ever have to be brought before the Disciplinary 
Committee subsequent to the Peter Wrenn incident? A. 
No.

Q. I believe you have identified staements made by sev­
eral employees at the American Cast Iron Pipe Company. 
Defendant’s Exhibit 12 is signed by Ed Rials, and Defend­
ant’s Exhibit 13 is signed by Charles Robbins, and Defend­
ant’s Exhibit 14 is signed by Jack Praytor.

Do you know those men? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How long has Mr. Robbins been with the company? 

A. I can’t tell you exactly the date of his employment.
Q. Do you know how many years or months? A. Most 

of them are relatively young men.
Q. Would you say either one of these men have been 

with the company over a year ? A. I don’t know.
Q. Do you have any judgment about how long their tenure 

with the company has been? A. No, I couldn’t tell you 
exactly because I do not work that close with these men. 
I did talk with each man personally in the investigation.

Q. None of the men have been with the company say for 
eighteen years? A. No, sir, I think not.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Cross



127

Q. In the work record of Peter Wrenn you referred to— 
it refers to an incident with Clarence Reese. I will read a 
paragraph from it.

“Peter was going to his job on the second shift Monday, 
May 7, 1956, at 2 :30 p.m. The route he used brought him 
near the place where Clarence was removing head core 
plates from flasks on the Northside Stripper Run. As Peter 
approached Clarence, the latter deliberately threw hot sand 
down his open shirt collar. Peter became enraged at this 
and struck Clarence in the mouth with his fist.”

Then reading the last paragraph, “ Peter, from all indi­
cations, acted upon impulse when he struck Clarence and 
was sorry afterwards. He is regular and an excellent 
worker. He has, however, in the past shown signs of tem­
per and should, in our opinion, be punished in some manner 
for his actions. We think that, although Peter struck the 
first blow, Clarence did something provocative to incite 
the attack.”

Then it is signed by Herbert Strickland, George William­
son, and K. F. Hardin.

Now, is it not correct it was said here that Peter threw 
hot sand down Clarence’s shirt? A. I didn’t say that, no, 
sir.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant— Cross

Mr. Forman: I think I may have asked that ques­
tion in that form and the error came from my ask­
ing the question.

Mr. Adams: Yes.
So far as you know, has there been any other inci­

dent where Mr. Wrenn has been laid off for any 
period of time?

A. No, he has not been laid off, to my knowledge.



128

Q. But lie was laid off two weeks because of this inci­
dent? A. That’s right, that is what I meant. Other than 
that.

Q. Mr. Copeland, at the decision of the Disciplinary 
Committee concerning the layoff the second time involving 
the Limbaugh incident, was that a unanimous decision of 
the Disciplinary Committee? A. There were no negative 
votes.

Q. Isn’t it a fact Mr. Lewis signed an affidavit stating 
that it wasn’t his decision? A. I don’t know anything 
about that. The Chairman asked for a vote and the group 
voted and there were no negative votes.

Q. You testified, Mr. Copeland, I believe, that you had 
Mr. George Hairston call Mr. Wrenn and tell him to come 
to the plant, that you wanted to talk with him. A. That’s 
right.

Q. You actually did not talk to him? A. Yes, but after 
the action of the committee. I intended to talk with him 
before that meeting so he would be informed of the charges.

Q. Did you tell Mr. Hairston to tell Mr. Wrenn what 
was the reason for him coming into the office at that time? 
A. No, sir.

Q. Do you know whether he did tell him or not? A. I 
don’t think he did.

Q. And you didn’t instruct him to do so? A. No, sir.
Q. I believe you have introduced a decision or recom­

mendation of Dr. Brimm. Do you know whether or not 
the charging party received a copy of that decision? A. 
No, I do not.

Q. Has the company complied with all the recommenda­
tions in that decision? A. What decision are you talking 
about?

Q. Defendant’s Exhibit 31, in -which Dr. Brimm makes

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Cross



129

recommendations to the company as to what they should 
do—the discriminatory practices of American Cast Iron 
Pipe Company. A. Now, what is your question?

Q. I will ask you whether or not the company has taken 
steps to end those inequities in the employment practices 
at Acipco? A. Yes, we have. I still think there is one still 
in question. That is the two Boards with the elimination of 
the Auxiliary Board.

Q. Isn’t it a fact these two Boards by the rules of the 
company are required to be white and Negro? In other 
words, the Board of Operatives is required to be white 
and the Auxiliary Board is required to be Negro, is that 
correct? A. The Board of Operatives shall be white men, 
yes, sir.

Q. And also the Auxiliary Board must be Negro? A. 
That’s right.

Q. He referred to the testing program which you have 
in existence and which was approved by Dr. Brimm, is that 
correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Isn’t it a fact the same testing program approved 
by him has been disapproved by the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission? A. I don’t know whether it has 
been disapproved. They have talked to us about it.

Q. Haven’t they rendered a decision to such an extent 
that such a testing program is discriminatory? A. All we 
have is the charge made against us about the testing pro­
gram.

Q. Isn’t it a fact that there is a wide educational gap 
between the white employees at Acipco and the Negro em­
ployees? A. Our testing indicates that.

Q. But you said you didn’t receive any decision from the 
EEOC. A. We received the decision that the charge was 
placed in Federal Court.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Cross



130

Q. That your testing program was discriminatory? A. 
The charge placed in Federal Court stated that they dis­
approved the testing program.

Q. I will show you that amended decision of the EEOC 
and ask you whether or not you have seen that? A. I am 
not familiar with that.

Q. I believe you are familiar with the letter of July 13, 
1967, signed by Peter Wrenn, Chairman of the Committee 
for Equal Job Opportunity, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Isn’t it correct that in this letter the officers state 
that they believe someone got to Dr. Hollingsworth, who 
investigated the case, and there isn’t a categorical state­
ment that there was a bribe through money but a belief 
that someone had been bribed? A. I interpreted it to 
mean they stated that they must have bribed him or he 
wouldn’t have made that decision.

Q. They didn’t say that actually it happened but it is 
their opinion what happened, is that what you understand? 
A. As I interpret it, they state we must have bribed them 
or they wouldn’t have rendered that decision.

Q. Drawing your attention to Defendant’s Exhibit 25, 
which is signed by you as Vice-President and Works Mana­
ger in which you state that Peter Wrenn made false and 
malicious accusations against the company and its officials 
or employees in a letter dated July 13, 1967, to Stephen 
Shulman, Chairman, Equal Opportunity Commission and 
in particular a false and malicious accusation that the com­
pany had bribed or caused to be bribed or otherwise im­
properly influenced a public official of the United States 
government in the exercise of his official duties.

The letter didn’t say that the company had bribed or 
caused to be bribed or otherwise influenced a public offi­

Frank Ii. Copeland—for Defendant—Cross



131

cial of the United States government, did it! A. It said 
we.must have or they wouldn’t have rendered that decision.

Q. But the exact words used here were not used in the 
letter from Peter Wrenn! A. Not the exact words, no, sir.

Q. Do you state to us you never heard Mr. Daniel state 
at any meeting that 75 percent of the Negro employees at 
Acipco would be eliminated! A. No, sir.

Q. I believe you stated in answer to Mr. Forman’s ques­
tion that you didn’t hear that at the Board of Operatives 
meeting which is a white Board! You stated you didn’t 
hear that statement made at the Negro Auxiliary Board! 
A. I have never heard him make that statement.

Q. Have you seen correspondence previous to this letter 
of July 13 written by Peter Wrenn or some other members 
of the Acipco Committee in which that statement was used! 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many occasions would you say, Mr. Copeland! 
A. At least two.

Q. Did you take any action or the company take action 
about that at that time! A. No, I didn’t take any action.

Q. Did the company, to your knowledge, take any ac­
tion! A. I think Mr. Daniel talked to Mr. Wrenn about 
it but I didn’t personally take any action.

Q. You don’t know what he did! A. I wasn’t present.
Q. Tell us whether or not you and Mr. Daniel and some 

other company officials regularly met with the Auxiliary 
Committee before the suit of Pettway vs. Acipco was filed. 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you meet with them regularly now! A. No, sir.
Q. Can you tell the Court why you don’t meet with them 

now! A. Well, the reason we don’t meet with them is be­
cause when we met with them after charges had been filed 
against the company, was because the type of meeting we

Frank H. Copeland-—for Defendant-—Cross



132

had before was we talked about the figures or operation of 
the company on a monthly basis and talked about business 
conditions and that sort of thing, and that we weren’t able 
to carry on that type of meeting as we had before. There 
was always discussion of other matters.

Q. And you couldn’t discuss that with the Auxiliary 
Board? A. Well, we were talking about things that had 
to do with riots and rates and job classification and that 
sort of thing.

Q. And you couldn’t talk about that? A. We could talk 
about it hut the purpose of the meeting was management 
met with them and gave them figures, operating figures of 
the previous month, and talked about the business situa­
tions and other things that we felt were pertinent at that 
time.

Q. Does management meet with the white Board of Op­
eratives? A. Yes.

Q. Is there a labor union as I understand it as such at 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company? A. No.

Q. Has there ever been one? A. No.
Q. The only group then that effectively represents the 

Negro employee at Acipco, Mr. Copeland, is the Negro 
Auxiliary Board as far as employment problems are con­
cerned? A. That is not correct.

Q. Which other group represents the Negroes? A. The 
Board of Operatives.

Q. The white Board of Operatives? A. They represent 
all the employees at Acipco that vote for them at the elec­
tions.

Q. But no Negroes are on that Board? A. No.
Q. Tell us, Mr. Copeland, wThat is the function of the 

Negro Auxiliary Board? A. Exactly what it says, auxil­
iary to the Board of Operatives.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Cross



133

Q. And the final decision must come from the Board of 
Operatives? A. They have a direct route with manage­
ment and can go and discuss things with management with­
out going to the Board of Operatives, but their primary 
effect is to be auxiliary and to make recommendations and 
suggestions to the Board of Operatives.

Q. And this practice has been found to be discriminatory 
by Dr. Brimm as well as the EEOC? A. I believe that was 
stated in the decision made.

Q. And what effort has been made to correct that? A. 
No effort at all. It is in the Federal Court.

Q. You heard the statement made yesterday and today 
that the Courts had decided it once and would have to 
decide it again. Have you heard that statement made by 
any person at Acipco? A. No, I have not personally.

Q. You have not heard it made by Mr. Daniel or any 
other person? A. He may have made the statement. I 
believe at one of the Auxiliary Board meetings he might 
have talked along that line but I am not sure that I recall 
hearing him make it. I have heard a lot of talk about it.

Q. You stated, Mr. Copeland, it would not be feasible to 
put Mr. Wrenn back to work at Acipco because of what the 
people feel about his being reinstated. Can you expand on 
that? A. I think any man who would make the statement 
he made against his company officials, our people would 
expect some action taken, the kind of action we took.

Q. When you say “our people,” are you referring to 
Negroes at Acipco or white persons? A. I am talking 
about the employees of Acipco. I don’t know that it is one 
hundred percent, but I say the majority of them.

Q. Do you know that over 80 percent of the Negroes are 
members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commit­
tee headed by Peter Wrenn? A. No, I don’t know that.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Cross



134

Q. You have heard that said at Acipco, haven’t you? A. 
No, sir.

Q. Do you have any judgment about the membership of 
this committee at Acipco, composed of Acipco employees? 
A. No, I heard talk about it but I don’t know the facts. 
The only thing’ I know is the statement made in our con­
ference where Davis Jordan made the statement that some 
twelve or fifteen were present when it was organized. That 
is the only thing I know about it.

Q. He was referring to the committee and not the group 
as a whole? A. I assume that is what he meant.

Q. You don’t know how many are in the whole general 
group? A. He said that many were present when they 
organized the committee.

Q. Don’t you know the committee is composed now of 
roughly eighteen men? A. I don’t know.

Q. Do you know the difference between the committee 
and the whole group? A. No.

Q. Would you tell the Court, please, Mr. Copeland, how 
a case is handled in the Disciplinary Committee? Is there 
an investigation usually made into a case before it is heard 
by the Disciplinary Committee? A. Yes, when the charge 
is brought in for a rule violation or whatever it might be, 
the matter is referred to the Chairman of the Disciplinary 
Committee, Mr. King, or the personnel director, and Mr. 
King notifies the members of the committee that we have 
a case and if it is something that needs to be investigated 
at the plant that happened between the employees, they 
will have a meeting called of the members of the committee 
and they will make the investigation and report back to him. 
They will take a day or sometimes more than that. When 
the members of the committee report back and state they 
have made an investigation, then he calls the meeting of

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Cross



135

the committee and the departmental superintendent in 
which the violation occurred and will make a written recom­
mendation to the committee. Either they accept it or mod­
ify it but he comes up with a written recommendation of 
the charge based on their investigation.

Q. In the case of the July 13 letter, was there any in­
vestigation made? A. Not any investigation made because 
there was the letter that had been written by Peter and 
signed by him and it was all in writing and it was pre­
sented to the committee and read to the committee.

Q. So, therefore, no investigation was made, is that cor­
rect? A. No investigation was necessary as we saw it. It 
was a written statement signed by the man.

Q. Did you inquire whether or not he actually signed it? 
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you inquire whether he signed it on his own or 
on behalf of a group? A. I asked him—we couldn’t get 
with him before the committee convened. He didn’t come 
and the committee convened and we took action in the case. 
We were not able to ask him any questions beforehand but 
we had his signature and signed statement.

Q. It did say the letter was signed Peter Wrenn, as 
Chairman of the Auxiliary Board, and the Chairman of the 
Equal Job Opportunity Committee, is that right? A. 
That’s right, and before he was told he was discharged I 
let him read the letter and he said he was familiar with the 
letter and that was his signature.

Mr. Adams: I believe that’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Forman:

Q. Mr. Copeland, at the same time you were talking to 
Peter Wrenn there, did you hand him a copy of the July 13 
letter? A. Yes, sir.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Redirect



136

Q. And lie identified the signature as having been signed 
by him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you read to him the charge that had been 
made? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Defendant’s Exhibit 25, dated September 5, 1967, did 
you read that to him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Defendant’s Exhibit 25, dated September 5, 1967, did 
you read that to him? A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you read the part that says, “ Such accusations 
are completely without foundation in fact” ? A. I read it 
all to him.

Q. Verbatim? A. I told him I wanted him to know the 
charges that had been presented to the Disciplinary Com­
mittee.

Q. Did Peter deny at that time in your presence any­
thing set out in this charge against him? A. No, sir.

Q. What was said? A. He just asked me if he was to 
leave and get his things and leave, and I told him yes.

Q. Mr. Copeland, is there a committee or a Board or 
some orgnization of the company charged with the respon­
sibility of setting job rates? A. Yes, sir, we have a Rate 
Committee.

Q. Who is that? A. The Rate Committee is composed of 
two members of the Auxiliary Board, two members of the 
Board of Operatives, and the department head involved, the 
employment manager, personnel director, myself, and Mr. 
Carter, my assistant.

Q. Is the setting of job rates the function of the Auxiliary 
Board? A. No, sir.

The Court: I believe we are getting into the merits 
of the Title 7 case. I have already held I do not have 
jurisdiction of that.

Frank H. Copeland—for Defendant—Redirect



137

Q. Mr. Copeland, I will ask you whether or not at the 
time that Mr. Daniel discontinued meeting with the Auxil­
iary Board, whether or not the Auxiliary Board had dis­
continued meeting, prior to that, with the Board of Opera­
tives! A. The Auxiliary Board never met with the Board 
of Operatives.

Q. Did the Chairman of the Board of Operatives sit with 
the Auxiliary Board! A. They said they-rather not have 
him present.

Q. It has always been the practice and custom that he 
would meet with the Auxiliary Board! A. We usually 
asked him to sit in with them.

Q. In recent months has further reconciliation efforts 
been made with the EEOC! A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they are still pending! A. Yes, sir.

Mr. Forman: That’s all.
Mr. Adams: That’s all.

(Witness Excused)

Kenneth R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct

Mb. K en n eth  K . D aniel , called as a w itness, being duly 
sw orn, was exam ined and testified as fo l lo w s :

Direct Examination by Mr. Forman:

Q. State your name, please. A. Kenneth R. Daniel.
Q. What is your capacity with American Cast Iron Pipe 

Company! A. I am president.
Q. How long have you been president! A. June 3, 1963. 

Approximately four and a half years.
Q. Prior to that time were you connected with Acipco! 

Briefly state your connection. A. I was employed June 8, 
1936, and with the exception of the four years I spent in



138

the Service in World War I I I  have been at Acipco roughly 
31^ years.

Q. Mr. Daniel, without going back over the other testi­
mony, let me direct your attention to a few matters.

I will ask you whether or not it came to your attention in 
a letter of June 7, 1965, which has been introduced in evi­
dence, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2, addressed to the President, 
that on page 2 of that letter at the bottom of the page it 
says, “Remarks: A member of management stated em­
phatically 75 percent of the colored employees would be 
eliminated because of a complaint filed with the President 
Committee for equal employment opportunity. A  vast ef­
fort went out to bring in a large number of white employees. 
Hence, it is expected of management to have a large layoff 
in the very near future. As a result, 75 percent of the 
colored employees will be eliminated as it was stated.”

Was that brought to your attention? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make an attempt to find out to whom that 

statement had been attributed? A. I certainly did.
Q. State to the Court what effort you made to determine 

the source of that statement. A. I called together the 
Board of Management to find out which one had made the 
statement. Naturally, they all denied making the statement. 
When they all denied making the statement I pursued it 
further and later on in a meeting I was advised by a gov­
ernment agent that I was the one who was supposed to have 
made it.

Q. Who advised you of that? A. Dr. Brimm.
Q. Did Dr. Brimm identify the source of his information? 

A. He said, “ They said you made.”
Q. And who is “ they” ? A. I presume Mr. Wrenn and 

his—

Kenneth R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct

Mr. Adams: I object to that.



139

Kenneth R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct 

The Court: Sustain the objection.

Q. You were talking to Dr. Brimm and discussing the 
letter from the Committee of Equal Job Opportunity! A. 
That is correct.

Q. And Peter Wrenn is among those who signed that 
letter! A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you later talk to Peter Wrenn about that state­
ment! A. I did.

Q. State to the Court what was stated to you by Peter 
Wrenn and by you to him. A. It was discussed in my office 
with only Peter Wrenn and I present. I told him that he 
had been making false statements to government agencies. 
His reaction to that was to deny it and with that I pulled 
out this letter and pointed to that quotation and asked him 
to tell me when I made that statement or anybody made 
that statement and he said it was made. Then I pointed to 
the fact 75 percent of the Negroes would be laid off and I 
asked him when this was going to happen and he said—I 
believe he stated it would be very soon. I think approxi­
mately a year had elapsed at that time. Even more time 
has elapsed now. He said it might happen very soon, might 
be tomorrow or might be two years, so with that I dropped 
the subject.

Q. Had you ever stated to anybody 75 percent of the 
colored employees would be eliminated! A. I have not.

Q. Has there been any discussion in Peter Wrenn’s pres­
ence or with Peter Wrenn as to the possible effect of re­
quiring the same employment, new applicant employment 
tests of colored employees as had previously been required 
of white employees! A. Yes, sir.

Q. What was that discussion! A. That was a discussion 
that took place between the Board of Management and the



140

Auxiliary Board about the middle of 1965. Dr. Brimm had 
—while he had not told us, he had discussed with us this 
possibility of making our employment requirements equal. 
In my discussion on that date with the Auxiliary Board I 
made the statement that I didn’t believe that our Negroes 
were ready to compete on an educational level with our 
whites and that I thought that the requirements of a high 
school education and the testing program would tend to 
reduce the number of Negro applicants we had coining in. 
I did make that statement.

Q. Mr. Daniel, has any colored employee, Negro employee, 
been laid off by reason of any testing program? A. No.

Q. Is there any expectation on the part of management 
to lay off any colored employee? A. No.

Q. Has Peter Wrenn been informed of that on more than 
one occasion? A. Many occasions.

Q. Mr. Daniel, there has been testimony about a state­
ment as to the Courts having decided it once and the Courts 
must decide it again. Will you state to the Court if you 
made such a statement and if so, what the statement was? 
A. I have made such a statement.

Q. When and where ? A. The circumstances were the last 
time I met—I made the statement on several occasions. 
The best legal advice we can get is that the Eagan Trust, 
which was run through the Circuit Court, I believe the Tenth 
Judicial Circuit Court of Jefferson County, some years 
back, and the Boards, the form of operation was set up in 
court and the Court reserved the right to make changes if 
any changes were made. Since the so-called Eagan plan 
and those Boards are constituted or were approved by the 
Courts, the best legal advice I can get is that the Courts 
would have to change it. We as the Board of Directors or

Kenneth R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct



141

the Board of Trustees are not empowered to change the 
provisions of the trust.

This is the only time I have made a statement that what 
the Courts established, then the Courts will have to change 
it. That is the only reference I made to that subject.

Q. Mr. Daniel, this is a matter of background but is all 
of the stock of Acipco held in trust for the benefit of the 
employees? A. That is correct.

Q. Under the Eagan plan and the trust? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Mr. Daniel, did you have any conference with Dr. 

Brimm? A. Yes.
Q. I will ask you whether or not you or anybody on 

your authority made any proposal to Dr. Brimm to offer 
him any monetary consideration or piece of paper or any 
sort of inducement whatsoever to make any decision he 
may have made in the course of his investigation? A. I 
did not and I have no knowledge of anybody doing such a 
thing.

Q. And as to Mr. Hollingsworth, I will ask you the same 
question as to him. A. The answer is the same.

Q. Has the company’s Board of Management ever been 
accused of having bribed a government official in the per­
formance of his official duty?

Mr. Forman: I believe that’s all.

Cross Examination by Mr. Adams:

Q. Mr. Daniel, are you familiar with the amended Com­
mission decision dealing with the testing program at 
Acipco? A. The only thing I am familiar with with refer­
ence to that is that I do know that that is one of the items 
where the Commission found probable cause. The Com­
mission doesn’t make decisions but the Commission finds

Kenneth R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct



142

probable cause and attempts to conciliate. That matter of 
the testing is still in conciliation. Dr. Harry, from the New 
Orleans office, has investigated this matter within the last 
two months and is preparing a statement on it now or a 
conciliation agreement on it now.

Q. I would like to show you this paper headed Amended 
Commission Decision, Pettway vs. American Cast Iron 
Pipe Company.

Have you seen that? A. Yes, I have seen this. This is 
part of that—they were to render decisions on two or 
three complaints and I asked them to render a decision on 
all of them before they conciliated. That is what they ren­
dered on the remaining cases and it is still in conciliation.

Mr. Adams: I would like to offer this as Plain­
tiff’s next exhibit.

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11 marked for identifica­
tion.)

Q. You state you did say words to the effect that the 
Courts have decided it once and the Courts would have to 
decide it again? A. That is with reference to the Board 
of Operatives and only with reference to the Board of 
Operatives.

Q. And the Negro Auxiliary Board? A. That’s right.
Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Daniel, that you received a letter 

from Mr. Blumrosen, Chief Conciliator of the EEOC, and 
he suggested trying to do something about the segregated 
Board situation because it wasn’t a part of the Eagan 
Trust? A. I look upon that as an opinion of Mr. Blum­
rosen. I have a great deal more confidence in my attorneys 
who have lived with this rather than Mr. Blumrosen, who 
knows nothing about our company.

Kenneth, R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct



143

Q. Has lie been here and investigated it for the EEOC? 
A. He was with, me from nine o’clock one morning and 
seven o’clock another.

Q. And did he have an opportunity to review records 
of Acipco? A. He may have had an opportunity to look 
over files of other investigators. I have no knowledge of 
that.

Q. But you stated yon had a conversation with Mr. 
Peter Wrenn in which you stated in your opinion to re­
quire the Negroes and white employees to take the same 
tests would be a dis-service to the Negro employees! A. 
I did not state I had a conference with Mr. Wrenn, but 
other members of management and the entire Auxiliary 
Board.

Q. Did you say words to that effect! A. I said words 
to the effect I was afraid that if we required a high school 
education and put in this testing program, it would tend 
to reduce the number of Negro applicants we would have.

Q. And did yon say in your opinion that if that were 
put in, 75 percent would be eliminated! A. I did not.

Q. You didn’t say that at the Negro Auxiliary Board 
meeting? A. No, I have never made that statement. It 
is a completely stupid statement.

Q. Then you did have a conference with Mr. Wrenn, is 
that correct? A. I have had many with him.

Q. I believe you testified here a few minutes ago about 
one you had with him in which you asked him about such 
a statement, is that correct? A. That is correct.

Q. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Daniel, on that occasion the main 
topic of conversation was the authorization of $25,000 by 
the Auxiliary Board to the Salvation Army? A. Twenty- 
four thousand.

Q. Is that correct? A. That was a matter we discussed.

Kenneth B. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct



144

Q. Only incidentally did you discuss this statement after­
wards, is that correct? A. You can say whatever is inci­
dental that you like to. They were both discussed.

Q. Mr. Daniel, do you meet with the Negro Auxiliary 
Board at this time? A. No, not recently.

Q. Have you met with them at any time since the filing 
of this suit? A. Yes.

Q. What occasion? A. I met regularly with them up 
until about a year ago. Suit was filed prior to that. The 
suit had nothing to do with my stopping.

Q. You didn’t make the statement that since they have 
filed suit there is nothing you could talk about? A. I didn’t 
make that statement, no.

Q. Tell us what you did say. A. I did state that our 
communications had seemed to deteriorate into the fact 
that all we discussed was individuals, rates, and a few 
things of that nature and frequently it seemed that pos­
sibly we might turn up the EEOC complaint and while 
pait of that complaint is engaged in litigation with the 
company I didn’t feel it was appropriate.

I also stated at that meeting that my door was open to 
any person just as it had always been and I have had a 
good many visits from members of the Auxiliary Board.

Q. Have you also had requests from the Auxiliary Board 
to meet in joint meeting with the Board of Operatives? 
A. We have joint meetings four times a year.

Q. Does the Chairman of the Board of Operatives usu­
ally meet with the Negro Auxiliary Board? A. Only with 
the management group.

One of the things we should get straight here, the Aux­
iliary Board is an Auxiliary Board to the Board of Oper­
atives, who are elected by all members, and are part of the 
Trust. There is no requirement that the Board of Man­

Kenneth R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct



145

agement meet with the .Auxiliary Board on any occasion. 
There is a requirement that the Board of Management 
give to the Board of Operatives the monthly and quarterly 
figures of the company. This is the only requirement. 
Other meetings can be arranged.

Q. Mr. Daniel, could you tell us any provision in the 
Eagan Trust for the Auxiliary Board at all? A. The Aux­
iliary Board was set up originally by Mr. Eagan under 
the name of the Y.M.C.A. Board of Management, colored 
Y.M.C.A. Board of Management. That name was changed 
to Auxiliary Board but the function remained the same.

Q. It is an extension of the Y.M.C.A. Board or—• A. 
At the time it was set up it was set up by Mr. Eagan in 
1922 at the same time the Board of Operatives was set up 
by Mr. Eagan in 1922, two years prior to his death. This 
group, while they were referred to as the Y.M.C.A. Board 
of Management, is the same number of people elected from 
districts and had the further charge other than operating 
the Negro Y.M.C.A. of being Auxiliary or bringing mat­
ters to the Board of Operatives which affected the Negro 
employees and they were also given the avenue of coming 
directly to the Board of Management if they had something 
they would like to present. This is not changed in any way. 
The name was changed but the functions have not been 
changed.

Q. And the requirements are that the Board of Oper­
atives be white? A. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. Adams: That’s all.

Redirect Examination by Mr. Forman:

Q. Mr. Daniel, have you ever stated to anybody the com­
pany had spent $40,000 on EEOC charges and litigation? 
A. No, sir.

Kenneth R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct



146

Q. Have you ever stated to Peter Wrenn you spent two 
weeks or a week or any other period of time in Washing­
ton in connection with EEOC charges? A. I have never 
been in Washington on EEOC charges.

Q. Did you ever make such a statement? A. No, sir.
Q. It is alleged in the motion for temporary relief that 

an order requiring the company to reinstate petitioner as 
an employee until a determination of this matter on appeal 
is made would not in any way interfere with the efficient 
operation of the company.

Do you have any opinion as to what effect, if any, rein­
statement, temporary reinstatement of the petitioner would 
have on the efficient operation of the company? A. We 
feel it would seriously affect the morale of the majority of 
our employees.

Mr. Forman: That’s all.
Mr. Adams: That’s all.

(Witness Excused)

Mr. Forman: Nothing further, Your Honor.
The Court: Gentlemen, I am not able to decide 

this case from the bench because I have not read the 
exhibits and, of course, would not be in a position 
until I have looked at the evidence. I would like 
to make this statement.

First, the posture of this case, the petition for 
temporary relief, preliminary relief, within the 
framework of the Pettway case which is now on ap­
peal, I am convinced the Court is entirely lacking 
in jurisdiction. The Court previously held that. 
However, it seems to me to be a futile thing to dis­
miss for lack of jurisdiction this petition and I prefer

Kenneth R. Daniel—for Defendant—Direct



147

Colloquy

to treat it as a new case, a new petition, based upon 
the contention that the defendant in discharging the 
petitioner violated the letter or spirit of Section 407 
of the Civil Eights Act of 1954. If I did what I think 
should have been done and dismissed this petition, 
it would be with leave to file another, and it would 
require another one, and that would be a waste of 
time. I don’t think any decision of this Court could 
be carried up within the framework of the Pettway 
case since that case was decided on the basis of 
this Court’s opinion in the Dent case and I know the 
Fourth Circuit has adopted the position of the Dent 
case and the Fifth Circuit has yet to be heard from, 
but I held precisely that in the Pettway case this 
Court had no jurisdiction which distinguishes it par­
tially from the school cases and the vote cases.

But at any rate I prefer to treat this independ­
ently as a separate case or conversely as though it 
had been filed initially without any reference to the 
Pettway case.

I will decide the case by noon on Thursday, after 
I have had a chance to look at all exhibits and I 
want the Clerk to get them together and deliver 
them to me and I will start on it.

Mr. Forman: May we have the privilege of filing 
a memorandum with the Court? In fact, I have two 
additional ones prepared.

The Court: I am going to decide the case by 
Thursday and you can file anything you want to. I 
recognize the cogency of the position taken that the 
Court has no jurisdiction. I recognize that and I 
agree with it, but I think by main strength and 
awkwardness we can treat this as an independent



148

Colloquy

action. I don’t believe a memorandum on the facts 
would be helpful. I think, in other words, it comes 
down to this so far as the fact question is concerned, 
was the petitioner discharged for just cause.

(The foregoing was all the evidence in the case.)

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #1

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1  is same as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 
“B” attached to Motion for Temporary Relief printed 
at pp. 9-10, supra.)



149

Committeemen For Equal 
Job Opportunity

American Cast Iron Pipe Company

June 7, 1965
The President 
The White House 
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Mr. President:

This is a follow-up of our correspondence with you, 
March 11, 1965.

We talked, May 7, with an agent, Dr. Hugh H. Brimm 
of your Committee For Equal Employment Opportunity, 
Members of the Board of Management, Mr. Kenneth 
Daniel; The President, and Mr. F. H. Coupland, the Vice- 
President and Work Manager of the company were in the 
conference. Also, present was a Mr. Burr, who was intro­
duced as a lawyer and Industrial relation Specialist en­
gaged in Private Practices.

We discussed partially the outline of our complaints 
which we had previously submitted to you. During the 
discussion Mr. Brimm showed so much prejudice, bias, 
and partiality, he was asked whose side was he on? Did 
he come down here to defend management or was he to 
take an impartial stand and hear the facts as presented? 
We had been lead to believe that as agent from the Presi­
dent’s Committee For Equal Employment Opportunity was 
to conduct a completely impartial Hearing and to be 
without prejudice or bias in his decisions. But Mr. Brimm 
refused to answer or comment on the questions put before 
him.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 2



150

Mr. Brimm has not dealt fairly with us in hearing our 
complaints. At one point he actually used profanity in 
one of his various attempts to discourage our bringing 
to your attention the various discriminatory employment 
practices o f our employer. When there was any questions 
of the truth of our allegations Mr. Brimm would angrily 
state, we could be prosecuted for willfully and falsely 
accusing our employer of unfair labor practices, but when 
there was no doubts of the validity of our accusation he 
said nothing. In the employees’ manual “Our Job At 
A.C.I.P.CO.” , the essence of the discriminatory employ­
ment practices are spelled out.

On the basis of Executive Order 10925 and the Civil 
Rights Law, Title 7, we are asking you to decision man­
agement to abolish it’s unfair employment practices. The 
outstanding unfair practices are as following:

I. The New Testing Policy.

a. Older employees are required to take a test 
for jobs which they have as much as fifteen 
(15) and twenty (20) years seniority rights.

b. All indications, the testing policy was devised 
to ward off the full effect of the 1964 Civil 
Rights Laws, Title 7.

c. The older employees are tested for things not 
included in their job environment.

d. Colored employees are doing the work, but 
they must be tested before getting the pay.

II. Job Classifications and Merit Rating.

a. Have jobs classified and rated according to 
Governmental specifications.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #2



151

b. Employees be paid according to their classi­
fication and rating.

c. Bullentise the all job classification and rating 
so employees will know their employmental 
status.

III. Hiring Practices.

a. Two-hundred (200) white employees in contrast 
of ten (10) colored have been hired within the 
last year and a half (1%).

b. The colored that passed the screen test are not 
able to pass the doctor.

c. This practice began two years ago. It has not 
always been the practices.

Remarks: A  member of Management stated em­
phatically, seventy-five (75%) percent 
of the colored employees would be elim­
inated because of a complaint filed with 
“The President Committee For Equal 
Employment Opportunity.”

A vast effort went out to bring in a 
large number of white employees. 
Hence it is expected of management 
to have a large lay-off in the very 
near future. As a result, seventy-five 
(75%) per cent of colored employees 
will be eliminated as it was stated.

IV. The Dual System of Representation.

a. The White Board of Operative.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #2



152

b. The Colored Auxiliary Board.

c. The Board of Trustee.

1. The functions of this Dual System is de­
scribed in the Employment Manual, “ Our 
Job At A. M. C. I. P. CO. (The American 
Cast Iron Pipe Company).

We need you urgent consideration.

Very truly yours,

Committeemen For Equal 
Job Opportunity

American Cast Iron 
Pipe Company 
P. 0. Box 2241 
Birmingham, Alabama

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #2



153

Peter J. Wrenn 
Post Office Box 866 
Birmingham, Alabama

The President 
The White House 
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Mr. President:

November of 1963 I filed a grievance with the President’s 
Committee on Equal Job Opportunity acussing my em­
ployer, the American Cast Iron Pipe Company, of al- 
ledged discriminatory employment practices. December 
1963 and June 1964 Mr. Hugh A. Brimm (AMC Equal 
Employment Opportunity Office Department of The Army, 
Atlanta Army Depot U. S. Army Forest Park, Georgia 
30030) investigated my complaint. Each time I was told 
that the report would be forward to Washington for them, 
the above mentioned committee’s headquarters, to decide 
what would be done. But, I have not received any word 
of notice relative to the issue. As a result, I am asking 
you for your advice and assistance to get the committee to 
render a decision and to get the management of the com­
pany to take affirmative action to ensure that the em­
ployees are treated during employment without regard 
to their race, creed, color or national origin. The president 
of the company Mr. Daniel, has openly stated that seventy- 
five per-cent (75%) of the colored employees would be 
eliminated. Already, by devised systematic means, jobs 
are being taken away from colored employees who have 
held certain positions for years. If I had known that the 
committee would allow the company to resort to such bold 
reprisive action I would never have filed the complaint.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 3



154

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 3

I have read the content of the Executive order #10925 
and the “One” announcement on the company’s bulletin 
board. I was led to believe that through the President’s 
Committee On Equal Job Opportunity there were a chance 
for fair employment practices and job upgrading.

This is the second letter that has been address to you 
seeking your advice and assistance in the above mentioned 
grievances. Hence, the present letter is being sent by 
registered mail because of fear that the first was inter­
cepted or lost in the process of mailing.

Yours very truly,

Peter J. Wrenn



155

P R E F A C E

From each according to his ability, to each according to 
his needs. . . .  I came not to make their pleasures less, 
but I came that they may have life, and have it aboun- 
dantly. . . . Love ye one another for this is the golden 
rule, do unto other as you would have them do unto 
you, . . . .  I have fought a good fight I kept the faith 
and finished my course. . . . America the beautiful. . . .

Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought 
forth upon this continent a new nation conceived in liberty 
and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created 
equal. . . .  I know not what course other may take hut 
as for me give me liberty or give me death. . . . long live 
America, the home of the brave and the land of the free.

The above words and phrases are echoes of Christian and 
Americans indeed, Americanism and all that bear the 
name have been clearly characterized. In keeping with 
the spirit of the founders of our religious and American 
heritage the following proposal is made.

BOARD OF REPRESENTATIVES 

A rticle I

Section I. The name of this board shall be the Board 
of Representatives of the employees of the American Cast 
Iron Company.
Section II. The objective of this board shall be to give 
all employees full representation in management of the 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company to promote the de­
velopment of the creative instinct in all employees, to 
promote better employee’s moral, to promote better em­
ployee relationship, Industrial relation, and to render co-

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 4>



156

operative assistance that is deemed right in the managerial 
affairs of the company, to promote improvement in living 
and working condition of all employees.

Section III. The board of representative shall be a sum- 
marium of the board of operatives and the Negro Auxi­
liary Board.

Section IY. All problems, issues, recommendations, sug­
gestion, or what have you pertaining to industrial rela­
tion, empolyment practices, employment relation shall be 
upheld or rejected by a two-third majority vote by the 
board of representatives before a presentation is made 
to the board of management for consideration within a 
period of time limit of thirty days.

Section V. The board of representative shall be informed 
by management before or upon the expired time of the 
recommendation, suggestions or whatever the measure may 
be; of its acceptance or rejection.

Section VI. The board shall have access to the cost ac­
countant books so that employees may be informed by 
their representatives as to what they can do to cut manu­
facturing cost. The board shall have access to the sales 
report and shall be made familiar with its monthly and 
yearly statements of earning.

Section VII. The board shall assist management as 
deemed right in job elevation, wage adjustment, giving 
compensation for loss of health and comfort in any way.

Section VIII. Members of the board of representatives 
shall assist and cooperate with management in employment 
practices, hiring, firing, lay-off and discipling employees.

Section IX. The board of representatives shall reserve 
the right to put any rejected measure of the board of

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 4



157

management to a vote of all the employees of the Ameri­
can Cast Iron Pipe Company, and shall be upheld or 
rejected by a two-third majority vote. An issue, recom­
mendation, suggestion or what have you, that is upheld 
by a two-third majority vote shall be presented to the 
board of Directors who shall make a final and ultimate 
decision as quick as possible except in rare cases of 
Federal intervention.
Section X. Any amendment to any article describing the 
board of representatives of the American Cast Iron Pipe 
Company shall require a two-third majority vote of the 
board of representatives and the endorsement of the board 
of management of the American Cast Iron Pipe Company.

Section XI. No employee of the board of representatives 
shall in any way persuader or influence, any employee 
in any way to join or bargain with any local, national or 
international labor organization for any reason whatever 
relatively to industrial relation of the American Cast Iron 
Pipe Company. Any representatives found guilty of vio­
lating any section of any article describing the rules and 
regulations of th e ...............! ...............
Section XII. The board of representatives shall consult 
with the board of management for training and develop­
ment in leadership so that better assistance can be ren­
dered in the managerial affairs of the company.

A rticle II

Section I. To be elected to the board of Representatives 
an employee must be an American citizen of employment 
age is required by the state, who is not a member of man­
agement, shall have been employed by the company not

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 4



158

less than five years p rio r  to the date o f  his p rop osed  elec­
t io n ; shall be o f  g ood  m oral Christian character.

Section II. Employees who have been in service of the 
company for six or more continuous full months prior 
to a nomination and election shall be eligible for casting 
one vote for one or more nominees of his district.

A rticle III

Section I. The election for hoard of representatives shall 
be secret ballot and shall be held on the first pay-day in 
April of each year, the term of office to the successful 
candidates to begin on the Monday of May following.

Section II. A sufficient time before the date of each an­
nual election, the board of operatives shall appoint an 
election committee from among those employees eligible 
to vote in the election. This committee shall make all 
arrangements for, and have complete charge of the nomina­
tion and election, the counting of ballots and all similar 
details connected with such election, and shall make a 
written report of the election results to the Board of 
Operatives not later than the last Monday in April. Mem­
bers of the Board of Bepresentatives shall be ineligible 
for membership on the election committee. By the nomina­
tion election, the committee shall provide at least two 
candidates for each representative to be elected. At the 
discretion of the board of representatives, vacancies on 
said board may be filled either by appointment by the 
Board of Management, or by special election in the division 
affected. The rules for the regular annual election shall 
govern special election.

Section III. The number of members on the Board of 
Bepresentatives and combination of departments into elec­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 4



159

toral divisions shall be subjected to change once a year 
prior to the annual election, and such changes shall be made 
by a two-third majority of board of operatives and with 
the consent and approval of the Board of Management.

A rticle IV

Section I. The officers of the board of representatives 
shall be a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary, who 
shall be elected annually by the board at the first meeting 
officially attended by the newly elected members, and a 
treasurer. The Treasurer of the American Cast Iron Pipe 
Company shall be Treasurer of the Board of Operatives. 
The Chairman of the Board shall be ex-officio member of 
all committees, standing and temporary.

A rticle V

Section I. The board of representatives shall nominate an­
nually at the first meeting officially attended by the newly 
elected members, two of its members to the stockholders 
of American Cast Iron Pipe Company. In case of a 
vacancy for any reason in the representation of the board 
of directors, the board of representatives shall nominate 
one of its members for the unexpired term.

Section II. The board of representatives shall have the 
right to carry any grievance of any employee, or any 
group of employees or any ex-employee to that member 
of the board of management in whose department said 
employee, group of employees or ex-employee is, or was, 
employed. If unable to make adjustment satisfactory to 
all persons concerned, the matter may then be referred to 
the board of management.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 4



160

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 4  

A rticle VI

Section I. The order of business at the meeting of the 
board of operatives and all questions of parliamentary 
procedures shall be handled according to the regulations 
set forth in “Roberts’ rules of order.” The regular meeting 
of the board shall be held on the first Monday of each 
month, at such a time and place as the board shall deter­
mine.

Section II. Absence by a member of the board from two 
consecutive meetings, except for absence from the city, 
illness, or other reasons satisfactory to other members of 
the board shall act as a resignation of this office.

Section III. Special meetings of the board of representa­
tives shall be called by the Chairman, or in his absence, 
by the Vice Chairman, or at the request of any four mem­
bers of the board.

Section IV. During the term of office of any member of 
the board of operatives, said member shall be allowed 
during his regular working hours such times as may 
be required to properly attend to the business of the board 
of representatives and his wages or salary or standing in 
his department shall not be affected by his absence from 
his regular work for the above reason.

Section V. In order to facilitate its work, the Chairman 
of the Board of Representatives shall appoint annually 
standing committees, subject to the approval of the Board, 
with names and duties as follows:

Living Conditions Committee: This committee will make 
recommendations with a view to helping the Management 
of the company in its aims to see that every employee



161

working regularly and faithfully for the company shall 
be offered regular employment and shall receive such a 
wage as will enable him to live in reasonable comfort.
Committee on Working Condition: This committee will 
make recommendations on matters of wages, working hours, 
and the comfort and safety of working conditions.
Suggestion Committee: This committee will meet with a 
shop committee on suggestion and the full committee will 
pass on shop suggestion, deciding whether such suggestion 
shall be adopted or rejected.

The above named committees will report to the Board 
Operatives which will, after due consideration, make such 
recommendations to the Board of Management as it may 
deem wise.
Section VI. In general employees shall present their sug­
gestions, grievance or communication to the Board of 
Representatives through the representatives elected from 
their respective division. If, however, for any reason an 
employee prefers to communicate to the board directly 
through its chairman, Vice-Chairman, or Secretary, he or 
she shall be free to do so.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 4



162

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 5

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

M E M O R A N D U M
E qual E m ploym ent  Opportunity  C ommission

D a t e : November 7, 1967 
In reply refer to:

#  *  #



163

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 5  

[E mblem]

E qual E mployment Oppobtunity Commission 
W ashington, D.C. 20506

Peter J. Wrenn
Requesting Party

R equest fob R econsideration of D ecision

Case No. 6-9-7604 
(No 6-10-171)

in re: Peter J. Wrenn
Charging Party 

vs.

American Cast Iron and Pipe Company 
Birmingham, Alabama 

Respondent

Date of Decision: May 22, 1967
Date Decision transmitted to Parties: May 29, 1967
Date Request for Reconsideration received: July 31, 1967

R U L I N G
Summary of R equest

Charging Party, a Negro, alleges that the decision in this 
case is contrary to the burden of the evidence.

S ummary of R econsideration P rocess

An examination of the chronology set foth above indicates 
that Charging Party’s Request for Reconsideration was 
not filed within five days of his receipt of this Commis­
sion’s decision as required by the regulations relating to 
the reconsideration process, 29 C.F.R. 1601.19(b).



164

However at the time Charging Party was notified of the 
Commission’s decision, the notification failed to specify 
the five day limit for petitioning. Rather than penalize 
Charging Party for an administrative error by the agents 
of this Commission his request has been accepted as if 
timely presented.

Charging Party had been disciplined by Respondent by a 
two week suspension without pay for using abusive lan­
guage against a fellow employee and charged that his 
suspension was because of his activities in participating 
in a previous charge filed, with this Commission, against 
the Respondent. The decision cited affidavits of Charging 
Party’s fellow employees who heard him use abusing lan­
guage towards his fellow employees on the specific occa­
sion cited by Respondent and on other occasions prior 
to the incident.

In his request for reconsideration Charging Party’s prin­
cipal contention is that his fellow employee affiants could 
not have heard the conversation in question because of 
the distance between their working station and the location 
of the conversation, and he presents a diagram of the area 
for the consideration of the Commission.

This is not “additional material evidence” such as is pre­
scribed in 29 C.P.R. 1601.19(b). During the investigation 
of this case the situs of the conversation was visited and 
examined and the question of the credibility of the affiants 
in consideration of the noise in the area (which Charging 
Party does not mention in his request) and the distances 
involved was carefully weighed by this Commission prior 
to the issuance of its decision.

Charging Party contends that the File Numbers listed 
on his letter of notification relate to “charges of a different

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 5



165

nature and time” . The Commission has carefully examined 
its records and does not find this contention correct.

The last contention of Charging Party is an assertion that 
“the company is receiving some type of cover-up protec­
tion for it’s (sic) unfair employment practices” , that, 
“ somebody, somehow got to” the Commission representa­
tive who investigated this case, and that, “we don’t know 
what was done or offered him, but we do know it had to 
have been something. Otherwise your decision would not 
have been so far off base” . As Charging Party himself 
notes, he has not presented any evidence to substantiate 
this allegation. Since the Commission has no information 
other than direct denials by its own investigator in whom 
it has full confidence, and by the Respondent in its formal 
reply to Charging Party’s Request, this allegation must 
be adjudged frivolous and without merit.

Respondent, however, did not regard this final allegation 
as meritless and frivolously made but deemed Charging 
Party’s statements as “ reckless, defamatory and libelous 
accusations against the American Cast Iron and Pipe Com­
pany, its officials and employees . . .  in charging falsely 
that the Company or its representatives bribed a public 
official in the exercise of his official duties” . As a result 
of its own determination Respondent terminated Charging 
Party’s employment for “making such false and malicious 
accusations against the Company” and has informed this 
Commission of its action.

The protection of Section 704 (a) of the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964 is a broad mothering wing for those who bring 
charges, testify, assist or participate in any manner in 
investigations, proceedings or hearings under this Title. 
The determination of whether Charging Party has com­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 5



166

mitted a libel against Respondent is one to be made prop­
erly by a court of law, not by this Commission or by the 
Respondent, and the remedy for Respondent is to institute 
suit in this regard, not to discharge Charging Party. Re­
spondent is hereby advised to rectify this situation by 
reinstating Charging Party and thus avert the formaliza­
tion of charges in this regard.

R uling

Charging Party’s Request for Reconsideration and the in­
formation presented therewith is hereby ruled insufficient 
in substance to merit any change in the findings and Deci­
sion originally issued.

For the Commission,

/ s /  M arie D. W ilson

Marie D. Wilson, Secretary

Dated: May 22, 1967

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 5



167

S tate of A labama 
DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION 

M ontgomery
Number 32452

S tate Certificate of H igh -S chool E quivalency

In consideration of evidence on file in this Department 
indicating educational competence equivalent to the attain­
ments of high-school graduates in five areas as set forth 
below, this S tate Certificate of H ig h -S chool E quivalency 
is hereby granted to P eter J. W renn  of Birmingham, 
Alabama, on this the 19th day of October, 1967.

/ s /  E rnest Stone

State Superintendent of Education

T o W hom  T h is  Certificate M ay C o m e :

The State Department of Education does not pretend 
to guarantee the holder’s qualifications for occupational 
or educational success. However, we are justified in the 
opinion that a large percent of such holders will succeed 
if the Certificate is recognized on the basis of a diploma 
from an accredited high school. The acceptance of this 
Certificate on such a basis is therefore recommended.

S tate D epartment of E ducation

The State Agency for the Accreditation 
of High Schools

T h e  T est on W h ich  T his  Certificate is B ased

The test which the holder has passed in order to qualify 
for this Certificate is a comprehensive examination, con­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 6



168

structed by highly qualified persons to measure ability in 
each of five aspects of educational growth and development. 
The five parts are as follows, each requiring from one hour 
to two hours to complete:

1. Test of Correctness and Effectiveness of Expression.

2. Test of Ability to Interpret Reading Materials in the 
Social Studies.

3. Test of Ability to Interpret Reading Materials in the 
Natural Sciences.

4. Test of Ability to Interpret Literary Materials.

5. Test of General Mathematical Ability.

The passing requirements for this Certificate were deter­
mined in the following manner: The test which the holder 
has passed was given to many thousands of high-school 
graduates throughout the United States. The scores or 
grades made by these high-school graduates were used as 
a basis for determining what competence would be equiva­
lent to the competences of high-school graduates in the 
five phases covered by the test.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 6



169

INTERNATIONAL 
CORRESPONDENCE SCHOOLS

S cbanton, P ennsylvania

This Certifies that

P eter J. W kenn

has completed the prescribed subjects for the course 

I ndustkial E ngineebing

and, in recognition thereof, is hereby awarded this 
- D I P L O M A -

W IT N E S S  : The Signatures of Officers of the International 
Correspondence Schools, and the Dean of the Faculty. 
Given under the Seal of the Schools at Scranton, Penn­
sylvania, this 4th day of June A.D. 1963.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 7

/ s /  R onald D. Claek 
Dean of the Faculty

/ s /  J ohn  C. V illaumu  
President

/ S /  R. E. VOGELBACH EK 

Secretary

[S eal]



170

GEDTS Form 30 
Revised December 1966

Official Report of Test Results 
T ests of G eneral E ducational D evelopment 

(Civilian restricted forms only,
Forms C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L)

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 8

issued by
Official GED Centers 

o f  the
General Educational Development Testing Service, 

American Council on Education

N ame of E x a m in e e : Peter James Wrenn

A ddress: 521 West 10th Avenue
Birmingham, Alabama

R eported t o : Dept, o f  Education
Montgomery, Alabama

F orm K
T est S coring D ate 1 0 /6 /6 7  
D ate R eported ........................

STANDARD PERCENTILE

SCORE R A N K

FOR U .S.

Test 1: Correctness and Effectiveness
of Expression .......................... 49 46

Test 2: Interpretation of Reading Ma-
terials in the Social Studies .... 48 42

Test 3: Interpretation of Reading Ma-
terials in the Natural Sciences 50 50



171

Test 4: Interpretation of Literary Ma­
terials .......................................  57 76

Test 5: General Mathematical Ability 54 66

AVERAGE STANDARD SCORE 51.6

The 1955 norms for the civilian and military restricted 
forms of the high school level Tests of General Educational 
Development were established for a sample of 38,773 pub­
lic high school seniors tested in April-June, 1955, just 
before graduation from a general (non-technical or non­
trade) high school. The schools in the standardization 
sample were selected from the U.S. Office of Education 
mailing list of public high schools in the continental United 
States. These schools were so selected that their relative 
distribution by states (and by enrollment classes within 
states) was approximately the same as that for all public 
high schools in the country.

The percentile rank indicates the achievement of the ex­
aminee as compared to the achievement of a standard 
group of 100 seniors tested in the 1955 norming study. 
The term “percentile” should not be confused with the 
term “percentage.” Percentiles can be compared to a lad­
der with 100 rungs. Thus, a person who stands on the 43rd 
rung of the ladder is higher than an individual standing 
on the 42nd rung. Likewise, an examinee who achieves 
the 43rd percentile has achieved a score equal to or better 
than 43 of the standard group of 100 seniors tested in 
the standardization program.

/ s /  J ohn  J y  N ash

Assistant to the President 
Jefferson State Junior College

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 8



172

[em blem ]

E qual E mploym ent  O pportunity  Commission 
W ashington , D. C. 20506

Case No. 5-10-759A

Rush Pettway, et al
Charging Parties 

vs.
American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
Birmingham, Alabama 

Respondent

Date of alleged incident: July 2, 1965 and continuing
Date of filing: November 22, 1965
Date of service of Charge: November 22, 1965

COMMISSIONER DECISION 

S u m m ary  oe C harges

Charging Parties allege discrimination on the basis of race 
in that Respondent:

1. maintains segregated restrooms, cafeterias, lockers 
an d hath houses and medical facilities;

2. conducts segregated employee activities;

3. maintains wage rate differentials on a racial basis;

4. maintains a discriminatory testing and promotion 
policy;

5. maintains a discriminatory employee representation 
board; and

Plaintiffs Exhibit # 9



173

6. maintains discriminatory employee records.

S um m ary  of I nvestigation

The investigation substantiates the Charging Parties 
allegations:

1. Respondent does, in fact, maintain segregated facili­
ties.

a. All restrooms in the production areas of the plant 
(7 of them) are dualistic and are use by employees 
on the basis of race.

b. The cafeteria has a wall separating the Negro and 
white eating areas. An opening of 36 inches has 
been made in the wall where the food payments are 
made. The white dining room has modern, com­
fortable furniture and equipment. The Negro side 
has old equipment, with garbage depositories in 
the center aisle of the dining room. There are no 
such depositories in the white dining room.

c. The white employees’ lockers and bathhouse are 
maintained in the basement of a principle plant 
building. The bathouse for the Negro employees is 
located on the second floor in another wing of that 
building and their lockers are located on the third 
floor.

d. The medical facility has two entrances which con­
tinue to be used in the customary segregated pat­
tern. There are two waiting rooms for dental treat­
ment and X-ray examinations and the practice of 
separate racial usage persists.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9



174

2. The Respondent does maintain segregated employee 
activities. It maintains racially separate charity 
funds. In fact, the authorization statement is labeled 
“American Cast Iron Pipe Company Authorization 
For White Charity Fund Deduction,” and “American 
Cast Iron Pipe Company Authorization For Colored 
Charity Fund Deduction.”

The investigation does not support the allegation
6. That Respondent maintains discriminatory employee 

records. Respondent does maintain racial designa­
tions on post employment records. This is not, a per 
se violation of Title VII, although the Commission 
prefers this type of information to he kept in separate 
records.

D ecision

Reasonable cause exists to believe that the charges are 
true in that Respondent:

1. maintains segregated facilities;

2. maintains segregated employee activities.

Reasonable cause does not exist to believe the charge that:

6. Respondent maintains discriminatory employee rec­
ords.

Q uestions F ob Commission D etekmination

Due to the unusual nature of the questions presented in 
charges 3, 4, and 5, I feel they should be determined by the 
full Commission.
On March 30,1924, the common stock of ACIPCO was willed 
by the owner of the company, John Eagan, to a Board of

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9



175

Management and a Board of Operatives, serving jointly as 
a Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees are the stock­
holders of the company and elect the company’s Board of 
Directors. The Board of Directors selects the company’s 
officers, who make up the Board of Management. This 
Board of Trustees is restricted to white, male employees 
over 21 years of age. Negro employees are restricted to an 
“Auxiliary Board” and therefore do not exercise any mean­
ingful voice in policy or management matters. (See at­
tached, page 3 and 4 question 5 of the memo from the 
General Counsel’s office.)

The testing and promotion policy is the most significant 
problem area. From its founding until 1942, the company 
invoked no educational requirement. In 1942, ACIPCO be­
gan requiring all white employees to have a high school 
education. No educational requirements were made of 
Negro employees. In 1964, at the suggestion of the Army, 
a high school graduation was made standard for all new 
employees. As a result, when entrance standards were 
equalized and when testing was instituted in 1956, the white 
employees were more highly placed and had better educa­
tions than the Negro employees. Testing was made general 
on the following basis: (1) no one had to take the test; 
(2) neither refusal to take the test nor poor performance 
thereon would lead to demotion; but (3) upgrading was 
conditioned on passing the appropriate test. Is it discrimi­
nation to give recognition to tenure in particular jobs where 
tenure was acquired while the jobs were not open to 
Negroes? (See attached memo from General Counsel page 
2, question 2.)
(Since this case has been considered for referral to the 
Attorney General on the points outlined above, I feel that

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9



176

it is necessary for the Commission to make a determination 
on the question of testing, and the question of representa­
tion)

Comments

In some instances Negroes who passed the test are still 
in substantially lower grades than that for which their test 
performance makes them eligible.

In 1965, 200 whites and 7 Negroes were hired. (See pattern 
of employment attached)

February 3, 1966

/ s /  L uther H olcolmb 
Luther Holcolmb

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9



177

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9  

B rief of Charge

This charge is a composite of an informational letter to 
E.E.O.C. and a formally executed charge filed by the 
Committee for Equal Job Opportunity. In these docu­
ments the committee alleges racially discriminatory prac­
tices by the respondent in (a) maintenance of employee 
records; (b) bath-houses; (c) recreational facilities; (d) 
differentials in compensation; (e) employee representation; 
and (f) application of a testing program.

N arrative of I nvestigation

In view of the fact that these charges were filed by a 
committee having only a post office box address, arrange­
ments were made by the Investigator to meet with the 
committee upon arrival in Birmingham. Mr. Rush Pettway 
was the sole committee member available and the charges 
were therefore made effective by the administration of 
Mr. Pettway’s oath. The several members of the commit­
tee work different shifts and a full committee meeting was 
not immediately possible. The committee, however, re­
quested such a meeting on the company premises but in 
the Investigator’s opinion such a course was unwise and 
contrary to normal E.E.O.C. investigative procedure.

The investigation of the subject charges and an additional 
complaint was initiated with company (hereafter referred 
to as “ACIPCO” ) officials on November 23, 1965. The com­
pany officials were extremely cooperative and Vice-Presi­
dent Coupland continued to make himself completely avail­
able throughout the course of a complex investigation. An 
offer was extended to ACIPCO to prepare a document 
purporting to be the company’s response to the charges.



178

The company indicated that such a statement would be 
prepared by counsel. (See Tab A -l)
The complexity of this case against ACIPCO is intensified 
by the peculiarities of its present organizational structure. 
The details of this structure are outlined in a paper pre­
pared (see Tab B) by Mr. James R. Forman, Jr., Counsel 
to ACIPCO. Essentially, the company was willed in trust 
to the employees by the founder, Mr. John J. Eagan, upon 
his death (March 30, 1924). The stock was left to the 
Board of Management and the Board of Operatives, the 
latter of which consists of white, male employees. Negro 
employees are restricted to an “Auxiliary Board” and 
they do not appear to exercise any meaningful voice in 
policy and management matters. They can however, re­
quest meetings with the Board of Management for the 
purpose of discussing matters of concern.

The company admits to a history of racial discrimination 
in the terms, conditions and privileges of employment in 
the past. The company maintained differential pay rates; 
assigned badge numbers on the basis of race; segregated 
food service and locker-room facilities; segregated rest 
rooms; and segregated recreational programs. The com­
pany also provided a type of YMCA facility, on a segre­
gated basis. While this YMCA service has been curtailed, 
the vestiges of that system continues to effect the current 
recreational facilities which are segregated.

The company has had an extensive history with E.E.O. 
procedures in view of its relationship to the U.S. Army 
Materiel Command (PIA Agency) under Executive Order 
10925. While this compliance program has had some effect, 
the basic situation in the company remains static.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9



179

From its founding until 1942, the company invoked no 
educational requirement. At that time, (1942) ACIPCO 
began requiring that all white employees were required 
to have a high school education. No educational require­
ments were made of Negro employees who were only re­
quired to pass a physical examination. Finally in 1964 at 
the suggestion of the Army the high school graduation 
was made standard as to all employees. This history 
clearly illustrates an educational disparity which has been 
structured into the ACIPCO work force.

In January, 1956 ACIPCO instituted a testing program 
beginning with management and ultimately extending 
throughout the work force. In establishing norms among 
production workers, the company selected one hundred 
employees, allegedly of average abilities, from eight de­
partments. This group consisted of 75 Negro employees 
and 25 white employees (23 white employees actually took 
the test). These 98 employees established percentile ranks 
based upon their placement which was the basis of the 
establishment of twenty-three pay groups. (See Tab C) 
The pay groups extended from a minimum of $2.26 per 
hour to a maximum of $3.37 per hour. The history of the 
testing program has been set forth by the Company (see 
Tab D).
ACIPCO uses seven tests (see Tab E) which are:

1. Wonderlic—pre-employment screening.

2. Personnel Research Institute — pre-employment 
screening.
3. California Short-Form Test of Mental Maturity— 
educational level.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9



180

4c. California Capacity Questionnaire — educational 
level.

5. Mechanical Comprehension — mechanical craft or 
equivalent.

6. Minnesota Paper Form Board Test — mechanical 
craft or equivalent.

7. Minnesota Clerical Test Office—clerical.

For purposes of this complaint the key tests are Numbers 
3 and 4 (above) which determine achievement levels and 
consequently pay grade and promotability.

The problem with the entire testing program and the basis 
for this complaint is procedural. ACIPCO attempted to 
interest all employees in career upgrading through test 
qualification. The Negro employees, to an undetermined, 
but apparently considerable degree, were skeptical of the 
test proposal. The company policy was that:

(1) if an individual employee declined to take the test 
he would be limited in upgrading to the pay group in 
which his incumbent job was located.

(2) if an individual took the test and achieved a score 
below the level of the job in which he was an in­
cumbent, he would not be down-graded.

(3) if an individual successfully executed the test, his 
achievement level would govern his upgrading possi­
bilities and his potential for skilled training.

Among the 98 men taking the test the 30 highest scores 
rated men at the 8th grade level through 2% years of 
college. In this group 12 were Negroes and 18 were white.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9



181

(Ten of these 12 Negroes were between the 8th and 10th 
grades). This result was inescapable since ACIPCO insti­
tuted the testing program at about the same time that 
an educational requirement was made for Negro employees. 
The test group being disproportionately Negro was also 
disproportionately under-educated.

This belated testing program is discriminatory against 
Negro employees because the prior hiring pattern had re­
stricted Negroes to low-level jobs. White employees pre­
viously hired had been assigned to higher paying jobs. 
Thus their performance on the test could have no adverse 
effect on White employees. A convincing number of white 
employees did not take the tests and retained their jobs. 
Negroes making a similar decision could only retain their 
lower paying jobs. It appears therefore, the discrimina­
tory practices which existed prior to the testing program 
continued to operate to the detriment of Negro employees 
after the institution of the testing program.

Continuous, loyal service to the company appears to be 
discounted. This principle is damaging to the interests of 
Negro employees. The Negro employees who did not have 
unimpaired opportunities in the past, continue to be de­
prived. This disparity can be illustrated with the follow­
ing names of white and Negro employees of comparable 
service, who did not take tests.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9



182

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9

White Employees
Total P ay

Name Job Service Rate

David Cornelius Leaderman Ramming 
Station

25 $3.31

Jack Welch Leaderman Ramming 
Station

24 $3.31

Robert Vice Leaderman Ramming 
Station

12 $3.16

Troy Fisher Lining Machine 
Operator

13 $3.19

Charles Allens Flash Crane Operator 9 $2.91
Lee Adams Oven Operator 13 $3.11

Negro Employees (* Charging Party)
Total P ay

Name Job Service Rate

*Rush Pettway Grinder 15 $2.37
*James Baskerville Core Maker Helper 13 $2.37
*Isaiah Pasley Rammer 11 $2.40
*Peter Wrenn Casting Machine 

Operator
15 $2.37

Willie J. Jones Core Machine Operator 19 $2.37
J. G. Sanders Pipe Funneler 28 $2.40

It may be noted in passing that the combined service of 
the white employees is 96 years and the service of Negro 
employees totals 101 years. The white employees average 
slightly more than $3.16 per hour while the Negro em­
ployees average slightly more than $2.35 per hour. This 
lends credence to the charge that there is a significant 
differential in the average wages of the racial groups of 
employees. A  casual review of the departmental seniority



183

lists (see Tab F ) reveals that most Negro employees are 
restricted in lower pay grades. Since the lowest pay rate 
is $2.26 per hour, this fact is an indication of the extent 
to which Negro employees as a group are deprived.

It can be noted that two Negro employees who did not take 
tests are in higher paying jobs. (1) G. Hardin, achievement 
level 5, works as Leaderman Enameline Machine Operator 
and earns $2.84 per hour; (2) Willie Jones, achievement 
Level 4, works as a Crane Operator and earns $2.79 per 
hour. Presumably these two employees were fortunate 
enough to be in higher rated jobs.
One factor in the employee control test group is highly 
questionable. The test was given in 1964. The Negro em­
ployee achieving the highest score is Mr. Booker T. Powell 
who achieved the 50th percentile or a grade level at or 
above the 10th grade. This achievement level indicates 
that he should be in pay group 17 or above. This means 
he should be in a pay range beginning at $3.11 per hour. 
As of the present time, Mr. Powell is a Grinder Station 
Operator and earns $2.40 per hour which is pay group 1.

With regard to apprenticeships ACIPO’s record is partic­
ularly vulnerable. Between 1950 and 1965 the company 
trained approximately fifteen apprentices each year. None 
were Negro. At the present time, one Negro apprentice 
machinist is being trained, and is making impressive prog­
ress. The company has six highly-skilled occupations which 
employ approximately 300 men as pattern-makers, mould­
ers, machinists, core-makers, electricians and maintenance 
mechanics. There are no Negro journeymen in these groups. 
The ineffectuality of past discussions of employment policy 
is dramatically illustrated by results during 1965. The 
company has hired approximately two hundred men dur­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9



184

ing this year. Seven have been Negroes and at least two 
of these have been hired since November 1st. The company 
has evolved from an earlier history of about 50% whites 
and Negroes in the work force to the present ratio of 2:1 
white among the present total of approximately 2,400. 
This decline in employment of Negroes is related to in­
creased mechanization which has eliminated heretofore 
Negro jobs.

ACIPCO has a well developed employment and testing 
procedure. The testing program is under the direction of 
a qualified person, Mr. S. P. Phelps, who has had gradu­
ate school training. Test results are appropriately confi­
dential and while freely discussed during the investigation, 
no evidence exists of differential treatment. The tests 
used for achievement levels are recognized and generally 
accepted. These tests (2 forms California-Mental Ma­
turity) seek to measure (a) facility with words and num­
bers, (b) recognition of tools, (c) ability to determine 
spatial relationships, form, etc. On the basis of the tours 
of the plant and the resultant observations of the manu­
facturing processes questions regarding the validity of the 
tests in relation to the degree of skill required by most 
jobs may legitimately be raised.

The study of employment processing revealed a question­
able practice. The application for employment (see Tab G) 
contains no reference to race. However, when an appli­
cant has been selected for employment and offered and 
accepted a job, he again visits the personnel department. 
At that time, the information on the original application 
is entered on a yellow form identified as “173L-4M” (both 
are then incorporated into the personnel folder). The 
173L-4M contains a designation of race. Personnel ex­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9



185

plains its use on the basis of clarity in that many appli­
cations filled out by applicants are illegible. Mr. Coup­
land indicated ACIPCO’s willingness to dispense with this 
form. (See Tab H)

ACIPCO continues to maintain racially separate employee 
charity contributions. At the time of hiring each Negro 
and white employee executes a form authorizing a deduc­
tion amounting to % of one per cent for the Charity Fund 
of White (or Negro) employees depending on the race of 
the employee involved. The fund for white employees is 
disbursed by the Board of Operatives; the fund for Negro 
employees is disbursed by the Auxiliary Board.

The other charge referred to earlier in this report was 
directed at ACIPCO’s administration of a remarkable, 
company-financed medical services program. This program 
is equivalent to what is commonly regarded as a “major 
medical” program. It includes a dispensary and treat­
ment facility on the plant premises providing diagnostic 
examinations (including X-ray), treatment (including den­
tal) and provisions for hospitalization. The Company em­
ploys a medical staff of five doctors, five dentists and seven 
nurses. This facility has historically been operated on a 
racially segregated basis although, at the present time, 
there are no racial designations. The Company’s efforts 
at desegregation have not been completely effective. In 
spite of some modification, the facility continues to be 
used on a largely segregated basis. This is symbolized by 
two entrances which continue to be used in the customary 
pattern. There are two waiting rooms for dental treat­
ment and X-ray examinations and the practice of separate 
racial usage persists. There are no Negro doctors or den­
tists, but there is one Negro registered nurse. She appar­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9



186

ently services all patients, although she seems to serve 
limited time on the reception desk.

As is alleged by the Charging Parties, all rest-rooms in 
the production areas of the plant are dualistic and con­
tinue to be used by employees on the basis of race. These 
rest-rooms were examined in the following locations:

1. Annealing furnace area;
2. Mono-cast office area;
3. Repairman’s Desk #1 , pipe shop;
4. Power-station area #3 , pipe shop;
5. # 3  pipe run;
6. Mono-cast pipe run; and
7. Cleaning shed

They are largely constructed of brick or cinder-block.

Two other facilities present especially serious problems. 
They are the cafeteria and the locker-rooms. The cafeteria 
has historically been segregated. It had a wall separating 
the Negro and white areas. An opening has been made 
approximately 36 inches wide in an area in front of the 
cashier where food payments are made. This is an in­
adequate solution since few Negro employees risk eating 
on the side formerly reserved for white employees. It is 
alleged that those who do have been intimidated. Of 
greater importance however, is the marked difference in 
the quality of the equipment of each area. The white 
dining room has circular tables, fixed to the floor, each of 
which seats six persons comfortably in swivel chairs also 
fixed to the floor. The Negro side has long rectangular 
tables, not fixed to the floor with movable wooden chairs. 
In addition in the center aisle of the Negro dining room 
are two garbage depositories which are unsightly and po­

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 9



187

tentially hazardous to health. There are no such unsani­
tary cans in the other dining room.

The white employees’ locker-room and shower is in the 
basement of a principle plant building. The shower room 
for Negroes is on the second floor in another wing- of 
that building. Negro employees also have lockers on the 
third floor. There are significant differences in general 
appearance of these lockers and showers. White lockers 
appear to have been recently painted; the Negro lockers 
appear dirty, battered and the original drab color. The 
showers for both groups are ancient vintage tile but the 
Negro showers appeared less well maintained (i.e. several 
shower heads were leaking at the time of inspection which 
is, of course, a condition which can he corrected).

The company offers as evidence of its affirmative action a 
list of 113 upgradings (see Tab M) since 1962. It would 
appear that the average of these upgraded salaries leaves 
these Negro employees somewhere well below the midpoint 
($2.78) of the minimum ($2.26) and maximum ($3.31) 
hourly rates. It also seems significant that a statement of 
company policy of compliance with Executive Order 10925 
by President Kenneth Kule (see Tab L) is dated August 5, 
1965.
The committee responsible for these charges persisted in 
their requests for a meeting with the investigator on the 
company premises as they had experienced with the Army 
representative. While reluctant to do so, the Commission 
representative arranged a meeting for Saturday, Decem­
ber 4th in a completely private area. The committee was 
able to communicate information which it had compiled 
and which was not in the possession of any single commit- 
tee-member. It should be observed that Mr. Coupland had

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9



188

expected that such a meeting would be desired (possibly 
because of prior experience with the Army). Some of the 
additional facts (or opinions) alleged by the committee 
could not be substantiated. These are answered as suc­
cinctly as possible as follows:

1. There is no evidence to support an opinion that 
white employees are given a different entrance test 
than Negro employees.

2. It cannot be supported that Negro employees not 
taking tests are restricted to pay group two and that 
white employees are assigned to pay group five. Un­
der present policy this is determined by the job being 
done by the employee.

3. It is not true that white employees, Douglas Noe; 
George Roberts; Ed Hands; Mike Stone; Bolen Bled­
soe and Robert Barnett were given easier tests.

4. The committee alleged that James Baskerville, Ne­
gro, a Core-maker helper, has been denied a promo­
tion which he merits. The company has agreed to 
review Mr. Baskerville’s record. Apparently, Mr. 
Baskerville has not taken the tests, thus could not be 
promoted under existing policy.

5. The committee alleged that a pattern of racial dis­
crimination operates in admission to company-oper­
ated night-school courses. The committee thought that 
certain white employees had been unfairly admitted 
to certain courses. The class records indicated that 
none of the employees in question were enrolled.

6. The committee alleged that Negro employees re­
assigned to less demanding jobs because of age or

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9



189

physical condition are reduced in pay while whites 
are not so treated. This is not supported. (See Tab J)

S u m m ary  op I nvestigation and Conclusions

1. That the structural organization of ACIPCO deprives 
the Negro employees of a meaningful role in policy-making. 
(703(a)(1))

2. That the institution, administration, and procedural 
operation of the testing program discriminates against 
Negro employees. [703(a)(1)]

3. That the company has violated its announced policy 
with regard to Booker T. Powell who is in a substantially 
lower grade than that for which his test performance 
makes him eligible. [703(a)(2)]

4. That Negro employees not taking tests are confined to 
substantially lower-paying jobs than white employees not 
taking tests. [703(a)(1)]

5. That current hiring policies continue to deprive Negro 
workers of employment opportunities. [703(a)(2)]

6. That racial designations on personnel form 173L-M4 
are unlawful. [703(a)(2)]

7. That the maintenance of racially separate charity funds 
are unlawful. [703(a)(1)]

8. That the operation of racially segregated medical, rec­
reational, food-service, rest-room, locker-room and bathing 
facilities is unlawful. [703(a)(1)]
It is recommended that the Commission find probable cause 
on the charges.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9



190

Additional note:

The Commission should be advised that ACIPCO employs 
no Negroes at the management or administrative levels 
and has no Negro clerical employees.

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #9

Plaintiff’s Exhibit #10

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit #10  is same as Exhibit 1 Attached 
to Plaintiff’s Affidavit printed pp. 15-16, supra.)



191

AMENDED COMMISSION DECISION 

Case No. 5-10-759A

Rush Pettway, et al. vs. American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
Birmingham, Alabama

Upon further consideration of the matters discussed in 
the Commission Decision of February 3, 1966, the Com­
mission determines that there is reasonable cause to be­
lieve that the respondent has violated Title YII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the following respects:

(1) Use of a test or tests instituted in 1964, which 
have the present effect of discriminating against 
Negro employees by preventing them from advanc­
ing into jobs and job categories which were his­
torically restricted to white employees only and 
from which Negro employees were historically ex­
cluded because of their race.

(2) Maintaining a segregated board of operatives which 
performs functions of a labor organization and may 
not be segregated under Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964.

F oe the  Commission

/ s /  J ohn  H . R oyee 
John H. Royer 
Secretary

Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 1 1

June 9, 1966



192

E qual E mploym ent  Opportunity  Commission  
W ashington , D.C. 20506

[em blem ]

Peter J. Wrenn Case No. NO 6-10-171
Charging Party

vs.

American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
Birmingham, Alabama 

Respondent

Date of alleged violation: September 13, 1966
Date of filing: September 15, 1966
Date of service of charge: November 4, 1966

DECISION
S um m ary  of Charge

The Charging Party, a Negro, alleges that he was given 
a two-week suspension without pay by the company be­
cause of his activities in participating in a previous charge 
filed with the Commission against Respondent. The inves­
tigation indicates that both the Charging Party and Mr. 
Glen Limbaugh, a white man, were given a two-week sus­
pension without pay for violation of Plant Rule VI (Em­
ployees’ Manual, page 28), which prohibits using abusive 
language against fellow employees. The Charging Party 
alleges that Mr. Limbaugh was properly suspended for 
using abusive language against him, but that he (the 
Charging Party) was not guilty of the charge. He alleges 
that the charge was fabricated, and that the real reason 
for his suspension was his activities in cases before the 
Commission.

Defendant’s Exhibit



193

Defendant’s Exhibit #1  

S um m ary  of I nvestigation

The evidence in this case is in conflict. The Charging Party 
states that Mr. Limbaugh used abusive language against 
him without provocation. After Mr. Limbaugh used this 
language, the Charging Party reporting him to the fore­
man, who had Mr. Limbaugh repeat what he said. Mr. 
Limbaugh was then sent home. Mr. Limbaugh states that 
the Charging Party was the first to use abusive language, 
and that he replied in such terms only because he was 
provoked. Several other white employees have filed affi­
davits stating that they have heard Charging Party use 
abusive language against Mr. Limbaugh and others during 
the weeks prior to this incident. Mr. Limbaugh states that 
this history of abuse built up to such a degree that he 
used the language which caused his suspension. The 
Charging Party denies using such language in the past or 
during this incident, and states that he is innocent of the 
charge made against him.
It should be noted that several other cases are outstanding 
against this respondent, including one currently in litiga­
tion. The Commission has found probable cause to be­
lieve that Respondent is committing a number of unfair 
employment practices by discriminating against its Negro 
employees. In light of this background, any action by Re­
spondent against the Charging Party, who has been a 
prime mover in the Commission proceedings against the 
Respondent, must be carefully scrutinized. Even with such 
a background, however, there is not sufficient evidence to 
justify a finding that the Charging Party’s suspension was 
based on his involvement in Commission proceedings rather 
than his use of abusive language. Both the Charging 
Party and a fellow white employee were given the same



suspension for this incident. There is evidence indicating 
that both individuals has used abusive language, and thus 
both were liable for suspension.

D ecision

Accordingly, there is no reasonable cause to believe that 
Despondent violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964 by suspending the Charging Party for two weeks 
without pay.

For the Commission:

May 22 1967 (signed Marie D. Wilson).

Defendant’s Exhibit #1

Date
Secretary 
Marie D. Wilson



195

AMXBI-IRS 26 November 1963
Mr. Peter J. Wrenn 
P. O. Box 866 
Birmingham, Alabama

Dear Mr. Wrenn:

Your complaint alleging racial discrimination against 
the American Cast Iron Pipe Company has been sent to 
my office for processing.

I will be in Birmingham on the evening of 3 December 
1963, at which time I would like to have the opportunity 
of meeting with you to discuss your case in more detail.

At this time I would like for you to have available all 
records of the work which you have done with the Inter­
national Correspondence School, together with copies of 
their letters to you, stating that you must have engineering 
experience in order to continue your program.

You will be permitted on this occasion to bring any 
counsel or witnesses to meet with us. It is my hope that 
our discussions together will be helpful in your case.

May I ask that you reply immediately upon receipt of 
this letter to advise me of the best place and time to 
meet you ? I will expect to arrive in Birmingham sometime 
around 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon on December 3. I 
can meet any time that evening that is convenient with 
you. Please use the inclosed self-addressed envelope for 
your reply. It requires no postage.

Sincerely,

H ugh A. B rimm  
Chief, Equal Employment 

Opportunity Office

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2



196

THE EMPLOYEES
of the

AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY 
2930 North, 16th Street 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35207

October 16, 1964
T he  P resident 
T he W h ite  H ouse 
W ashington  25, D. C.

Dear Mr. President:

We, the undersigned are seeking your advice and assist­
ance in protesting the Discriminatory, Clandestine, and 
dual Employment practices at the American Cast Iron 
Pipe Company, our Employer. Also, we would like to have 
your help in eliminating the Discriminatory, Prejudice, 
and Bias system of Employee’s Representation. Manage­
ment has been asked many times to consider the above 
mentioned wrongs. The only affirmative action taken, so 
far, has been to avoid compliance.

At the very present time many of the Colored Employees 
are being moved off their jobs which they have done for 
years. They are being replaced by White with lesser 
Seniority. In addition, the Colored Employees’ Represen­
tative are never allowed to serve on the all important Dis­
ciplinary and Employee’s Loan Committees. Again and 
again Management has been asked to consider the Em­
ployee status of the Colored Employees.

On the basic of Executive order #10925; as well as the 
Civil Right’s Bills: Title #7 , we are asking you to lend 
your assistance and Executive Authority in the above men­

Defendant’ s Exhibit # 3



197

tioned wrongs. Our grievances are in urgent need of con­
sideration. We will appreciate beyond measure your ear­
liest response.

Defendant’s Exhibit #3

Very truly yours

T he  E mployees of th e  A meeican 
Cast I eoh P ipe Company

Signed :

(The names of 109 Negro employees were typed as sig­
natories to this letter.)



198

AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY 

2930-16th Street North 
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

Employees For 
Equal Job 
Opportunity

The President 
The White House 
Washington, 25 D. C.

Dear Mr. President:

This is a follow-up of a letter of complaint signed by 
one hundred eight (108) fellow employees. The complaint 
was received by Mary H. Simon, October 19, 1964, 11:39 
a. m. We would like to know if an investigation can or 
will be made and thus a decision rendered.

The management has introduced an unfair employement 
practice whereby the colored employees are to be tested 
for semi-skilled work even though a man is already doing 
such jobs as core making, grinding, and machine operation. 
Many of these employees have ten to fifteen years of ex­
perience and seniority. We cannot see why an employee 
should be tested for rating of something he has been pro­
ducing satisfactory for years.

We the chosen committeemen, would like to have your 
assistance and thus get management to put a stop to the 
abovementioned unfair employment practice. We further 
request that our employer be persuaded to post bulletins 
of classification, job evaluation, and job rating. We would

Defendant’s Exhibit # 4



199

like to see each job classified and the operator paid ac­
cording to his job classification, rather than his color.

Very truly yours,

Committeemen For 
Equal Job Opportunity
/ s /  D avis J ordan 
/ s /  J oseph M arbury 
/ s /  L u ther  C ooper, J r . 
/ s /  M elvin  S tory 
/ s /  P eter J. W renn

Defendant’s Exhibit # 4



200

COMMITTEEMEN FOR EQUAL 
JOB OPPERTUNITY

AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY 
POST OFFICE BOX #22241 
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA

MARCH 14, 1965
The President 
The White House 
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Mr. President:

This letter is a follow-up of a complaint previously filed 
against our employer; The American Cast Iron Pipe Com­
pany.

An agent, Dr. Brimm, from your Committee For Equal 
Job Opportunity, visited our employer. We were called in 
to confer with Dr. Brimm.

1965: We pointed out to Dr. Brimm many unfair and 
discriminatory employment practices that are presently 
in effect. Also, how employees are denied their seniority 
rights solely because of their racial identity.

The following is an outline of the unfair employment prac­
tices that was presented to Dr. Brimm.

I. Ramming Station

1. Men with as much as 30 years of service with the 
company are denied even a trial for serving as a 
loadman or work group supervisor.

2. Other employees (according to race) are called in 
from different department to take the lead. These

Defendant’s Exhibit # 5



201

employees have less seniority with the company 
and no experience.

3. Management has “Point Blank” refused to give up 
this unfair practice.

II. Trava-Loader

1. The oldest man in department has been refused 
the opportunity to operate the motor vehicle.

2. Management has gone to other departments for 
upgrading and promotion.

3. Discrimination has been based on the employees 
racial identity. Seniority has been completely ig­
nored.

III. Employment Department

1. Our employer is discriminating in the recruiting 
program

(a). Becruiting is done according to race in both, 
the college and High School program.

IV. Service Department 

1. Cafeteria
(a) . Partition walls seperates the employees ac­

cording to race.

(b ) . Foods are served seperately.

2. Dispensary

(a). Partition walls seperates employees accord­
ing to race.

Defendant’s Exhibit # 5



202

V. Mono-Cast Core Room

1. Men with as much as 30 years of continuous ser­
vice has been denied their seniority rights.

2. Employees are choosen for leadmen or supervisor 
according to their racial identity.

VI. Employee Representation

1. Employees race determines their eligibility.
2. Only employees of a certain race can serve on the 

Board of Trustees or Management.

3. The employee manual spells out what race may  
serve in the capacity in question.

According to Executice Order #10925 the above mentioned 
unfair employment practices are forbidden.

On this ground, we the Committeemen For Equal Job 
Opportunity, would like to know if the management of 
the American Cast Iron Pipe Company can he persuaded 
to cease denying the employees, job opportunity and 
seniority rights, solely because of their racial identity.

Very truly yours,

Committeemen for Equal 
Job Opportunity
American Cast Iron Pipe Company

Defendant’s Exhibit # 5

/ s /  Melvin Story 
/ s /  Peter J. Wrenn 
/ s /  Luther Cooper 
/ s /  Davis Jordan 
/ s /  Joseph Marburry



203

Committeemen For Equal 
Job Opportunity- 

Post Office Box 903 
Birmingham, Alabama

June 8, 1965
The Vice President 
The White House 
Washington 25, D. C.

Dear Sir:

We are sending you this letter in protest of the unfair 
employment practices of our Employer, The American Cast 
Iron Pipe Company. We are addressing you because we 
have talked to Mr. Hugh H. Brimm who was sent from 
your Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity to 
investigate our claim. Mr. Brimm was very prejudiced, 
biased and occasionally rude in his general behavior to­
ward us. Hence, we would appreciate very much if you 
would send someone else to look into the matter.

We shall enclose a copy of the Employment Manual of our 
Employer. In that you will see spelled out in black and 
white the many discriminatory, unfair and biased employ­
ment practices of the company. Mr. Brimm, for some un­
known reason, chose to completely ignore the above men­
tioned wrongs.
Management has recently adopted an unfair testing policy. 
Negro employees with 15 to 20 years of services with the 
company are denied promotion and job upgrading. Many 
of these employees have for years been the nucleus of the 
operations. Hence, we do not think it is fair for manage­
ment to have the right to give these men tests which were

Defendant’s Exhibit # 6



204

designed to ward off the full effect of the Civil Rights Bill, 
and to deny them their seniority rights. On the other hand, 
we agree that management has the right to impose any 
policy it chooses on new or incoming employees.

On the basis of Executive Order 10925 and the Civil Rights 
Bill, 1965, we appeal to you to have our allegations in­
vestigated by a fair and impartial investigator.

Very truly yours,

Committeemen For Equal 
Job Opportunity

/ s /  James Elmore 
/ s /  Davis Jordon 
/ s /  Isiah Pasley, Jr.
/ s /  Henry Booker, Jr.

/ s /  Peter J. Wrenn 
/ s /  John F. Fillmore 
/ s /  Rush Pettway

Enclosure

Defendant’s Exhibit #6

Defendant’ s Exhibit # 7

Defendant’s Exhibit # 7  is part of Defendant’s Exhibit 
“A ” attached to Motion to Dismiss printed pp. 23-27, supra.



205

AMERICAN
CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY

P. 0. Box 2603 
Birmingham 2, Alabama

September 5, 1967
To: Mr. J. C. King

Chairman, Discipline Committee 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company

Peter J. Wrenn made false and malicious accusations 
against the Company and its officials or employees in a 
letter dated July 13, 1967, to Stephen Shulman, Chairman, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, with a copy 
being sent by him to the President of the United States; 
and in particularly, a false and malicious accusation that 
the Company had bribed or caused to be bribed, or other­
wise improperly influenced a public official of the United 
States Government in the exercise of his official duties. 
Such accusations are completely without foundation in fact, 
and are so grossly libelous that they cannot be tolerated 
or in any manner condoned. Furthermore, such accusations 
accuse the Company and its representatives of committing 
acts in violation of the criminal statutes of the United 
States. A  copy of the letter is attached. Management rec­
ommends discharge of this employee.

/ s /  F. H. Coupland 
F. H. Coupland
Vice President and Works Manager

Defendant’s Exhibit # 8



206

MINUTES OP THE COMMITTEE 
FOE

HANDLING COMPANY EULE VIOLATIONS 
MEETING — SEPTEMBEE 14, 1966

A  meeting of the Committee for Handling Company Buie 
Violations was held on Wednesday, September 14, 1966 
at 2 :00 P.M. in the Plant Conference Boom.

Those in attendance at this meeting were: F. H. Coup­
land, S. F. Carter, J. C. King, S. P. Phelps, G. B. Ham- 
lett, E. B. Eidgeway, Leonard Lewis, George Hairston, 
Elder E. Murray, Vice Chairman of Auxiliary Board.

This meeting was called for the purpose of discussing 
the cases of: Howard Glen Limbaugh #115 and Peter 
J. Wrenn #4650—both employees of the Mono-cast De­
partment—and their violations of Plant Eules.

Eecommendation was made to the committee by George 
Hairston, in the form of a motion to—lay off Howard 
Glen Limbaugh #115 for a period of two weeks for 
violation of Plant Eule No. 4 “Assault of fellow em­
ployees—no object involved—abusive language, brawling, 
fighting, interfering with fellow employees on Company 
premises or any act or threat thereof.” This motion re­
ceived a second from F. H. Coupland and was unanimously 
approved by committee vote.

Eecommendation was made to the committee by George 
Hairston, in the form of a motion to—lay off Peter J. 
Wrenn #4650 for a period of two weeks for violation 
of Plant Eule No. 4 “Assault of fellow employees—no 
object involved—abusive language, brawling, fighting, in-

Defendant’ s Exhibit # 9



207

Defendant’s Exhibit # 9

terfering with fellow employees on Company premises 
or any act or threat thereof.” This motion received a 
second from S. P. Phelps and was unanimously approved 
by committee vote.

The committee meeting was adjourned at 3:30 P.M.

/ s /  J. C. K ing 
J. C. King



208

On Saturday night September 10, I had relieved Peter 
Wrenn on the casting machines, he was gone about forty 
minutes.

When he returned he saw some crayon markings on 
the rheostat and said, “What white son of a bitch put 
this on there?”

Losing my self-control I said, “Listen here you black 
son of a bitch, you are no better than the rest of us, you 
had better keep your mouth shut.”

I was rolling a flash up against the steps when this 
happened. Peter turned and went to get Mr. Busby. 
When Mr. Busby found out what I said he sent me home.

Peter had been picking at me pretty hard for the past 
few weeks.

On one occasion he told me “You are nothing but a 
damn mountain hoosier!”

On another occasion he shook his finger at me and said 
“You are the most uncultured piece of white trash I have 
ever seen!”

By these and other remarks he had made, I had just 
about all I could take, so I lost my head.

Defendant’s Exhibit # 1 0

September 13, 1966

/ s /  Glen  L imbaugh



209

Statement made by Peter J. Wrenn, #4650, to P. H. 
Coupland and George Hairston regarding incident which 
occurred Saturday, September 10, in # 1  Mono-Cast at 
approximately 8 p.m.

Defendant’s Exhibit # 1 1

September 12, 1966

“I went to the toilet and then took time for supper. 
When I came back to my machines, Tenn (Glen Limbaugh) 
said I told you to stay 30 God damn minutes. You black 
SOB I’ll beat your damn brains out.”

(Peter stated Glen had a hammer in his hand. Peter 
said he backed up and went to get Mr. Busby, the foreman.)

“I said to Mr. Busby, that boy called me a black SOB 
and said he would beat my brains out.

“As we walked back to the machines Mr. Busby mo­
tioned for the boy to go down in the hold.

“Mr. Busby came back later and told me he had sent 
the boy home and he had no business talking to me like 
that.”



210

September 13, 1966

I, Ed Eials, have heard Peter Wrenn make the following 
statements.

While carrying on conversations with Glenn Limbaugh 
I have heard him refer to the white race as white trash. 
I have also heard him tell Glenn, “Us ‘Niggers’ can do 
anything yon white boys can do around this place.”

I was using the men’s room, Peter Wrenn walked in 
and said, “Let a man in.”

I feel that I was unnecessarily harrassed by Peter 
Wrenn’s issues over my mistakes while I was being trained 
to skin.

Defendant’s Exhibit # 1 2

/ s /  E d R ials



211

Defendant’ s Exhibit # 1 3

Sept. 13, 1966

The remarks below have been made to me or in my 
presents (sic) in the past few weeks, by Peter Wrenn.

On several occasions he has run down my job to me, 
“ telling me he was a much better man and had ?

On another occasion he made a statement to me “calling 
Glenn Limbaugh the most uncultured white trash he had 
ever seen.”

On another occasion he said (to me) “It is just like a 
lazy damn white man to leave the iron on the ? .”

He has said so much to me over a period of time, that 
I just ignored everything he said because I have heard 
he was a trouble maker.

On another occasion he said this to me, “that you 
couldn’t tie that fat son of bitch (Klim Weeks) and 
through him on me.” (Peter Wrenn)

/ s /  Charles J. B obbins



212

I Jack Praytor have heard Peter Wrenn say to Glen 
Limbaugh, “You are the most uncultured piece of white 
trash I have ever seen,”—“You are an uneducated moun­
tain hillbilly”—or something in that order,—“I don’t know 
if your smart enough to run these machines, or not, while 
I ’m gone, This is a man size job here.”

The following on different occasions recently he (Peter) 
has said to me.—-“Are you about ready to buy some pro­
tection Jack?” What kind of protection, Peter? “White 
man’s protection Jack.”—“What are you boys talking 
about?” “Your not talking about niggers, are you?”— 
“Jack, tell me something; why is it that white boys want 
to screw black girls & black boys want to screw white 
girls?” (He said to me about Mr. Weeks.) “You couldn’t 
whip that fat S.O.B.’s ass, hog tie him and throw him 
on me.”

Defendant’ s Exhibit ^ 1 4

Sept. 13, 1966

/ s /  J ack  P eaytob



213

AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY 
I nter-Organization Correspondence

Originating at
date : September 13, 1966

To: Mr. J. C. King (2)
Co pies : Personnel File 
F rom : George Hairston

Defendant’s Exhibit # 1 5

su b je ct :

Peter J. Wrenn #4650 
Birth: May 14, 1926 
Employment: May 26, 1950

On Saturday night, September 10, at about 8 :00 p.m. 
Peter Wrenn called his foreman, Pratt Busby, and told 
him that Glen Limbaugh had called him a black SOB.

Limbaugh admitted he made such a statement to Pratt 
Busby, his foreman, saying that he just lost his head. 
He was sent home by Busby pending an investigation 
and told to return Monday morning and talk to George 
Hairston. Limbaugh stated to George Hairston that he 
had relieved Peter Wrenn on the casting machine and 
that when Wrenn returned Wrenn saw some crayon mark­
ings on the Rheostat and turned to him saying “What 
white SOB put this on there.” Also Limbaugh stated that 
Peter Wrenn has used abusive or insulting language to­
ward him recently. Statements of Charles Robbins, Jack 
Praytor and Ed Rials verify this. Peter Wrenn denied 
making such statements.

The investigation shows that Peter Wrenn had an equal 
responsibility in this incident. His abusive language and



214

conduct toward Limbaugh was in violation of Plant Rule 
No. 4: “Assault of fellow employees—no object involved— 
abusive language, brawling, fighting, interfering with fel­
low employees on Company premises or any act or threat 
thereof.”

I recommend that he be laid off for two weeks and that 
he return to work on September 27, 1966.

/ s /  George H airston

Defendant’s Exhibit #15



215

Defendant’s Exhibit # 1 6

E qual E mploym ent  Opportunity  Commission 
1806 Gr Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20506
Case File No.

(please print or type)

1. Your Name: Peter J. Wrenn
Street Address: 521 10th Avenue, West
City: Birmingham
State: Alabama
Zip Code: 35204
Phone Number: 322-6884

2. Was the discrimination because of:
(please check one)
iXl Bace or Color 
Q  Eeligious Creed 
■[ 1 National Origin
□  Sex
Specify: Negro

3. Who discriminated against you! Give the name and 
address of the employer, labor organization, employ­
ment agency and/or apprenticeship committee. If more 
than one, list all.
Name: American Cast Iron Pipe Co.
Street Address: 2930 16th St. No.
City: Birmingham 
State: Alabama 
Zip Code: 35202
and (other parties if any) .............................................

4. Have you filed this charge with a state or local govern­
ment agency!
□  Yes [xj No



216

5. I f your charge is against a company or a union, how 
many employees or members! App. 2500
| | Do not know

6. The most recent date on which this discrimination 
took place: Month: September Day: 13 Year: 1966

7. Explain what unfair thing was done to you :
On Tuesday, September 13, 1966 I was sent home for 
an unstated amount of time from my job by the Supt. 
of the Mono-Casting Dept, on the untrue charge that 
I had provoked a white employee to use vile language 
against me and threatened me with bodily harm. I 
believe that I am a victim of intimidation in this case 
because of my activities in trying to eliminate dis­
crimination at the plant, including my participation 
in a previous charge (5-10-759A) filed with EEOC.

8. I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge 
and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, in­
formation and belief.

Date: ......................

Defendant’s Exhibit #16

M ...................

Subscribed and sworn to before me this
............................... > ...............

day of

/s/



217

A merican  Cast I ron P ipe C ompany —
IN TER -O R G A N IZA TIO N  CORRESPONDENCE

Originating at Mono Cast Department

Date: March 25, 1965
T o : Mr. F. H. Coupland 
Copies: Mr. J. C. King (File)
From: George Hairston

Subject:
P eter J. W renn  #4650

During the handling of the discipline case involving James 
L. Jones #4269 by authorized Supervision of the Mono 
Cast (a copy of this action is a matter of record in Jones’ 
file) Peter J. Wrenn, Auxiliary Board Member, became 
involved.

Wrenn saw Jones after Phillips had sent Jones home and 
Wrenn told him, “ you wait, until I get on top of this” . Jones 
told Phillips and me that Mr. Peter told him to wait, when 
Phillips found that Jones came back into the shop after he 
sent him home.

In trying to talk Phillips into retracting his action (of 
which I was aware) and letting Jones come back to work, 
Wrenn said, “ This should be settled here without me hav­
ing to take this to Mr. Coupland or Mr. Hairston” , or sim­
ilar words.

I called Wrenn to my office on Wednesday, March 24, and 
asked him by what authority he had over ruled instructions 
from one of the Mono Cast Foreman. He told me that he 
did not mean for Jones not to go on home.

Defendant’ s Exhibit # 1 7



218

I also told him that I considered his remarks about taking 
the case to Mr. Coupland as a threat, and that any time 
he wanted to go to Mr. Coupland I was perfectly willing to 
go with him.

In closing this discussion, I told Wrenn in no uncertain 
terms that he had no authority to change any instructions 
of our authorized Supervision and that I would not tolerate 
such action again. He was free to investigate hut he had 
no authority. I also told him that it was time he used a 
little judgment and common sense in dealing with plant 
problems and never to try to threaten me in any manner 
again.

In conclusion, I told Wrenn that I wanted to have a confer­
ence with him and discuss his status as far as the shop was 
concerned.

Defendant’s Exhibit #17

/ s /  George H airston 
George Hairston



219

May 9, 1956
M r . K . F. H ardin

4763 Clarence Eeese — Employed 8-20-52 
4650 Peter Wrenn — Employed 5-26-50

Peter was going to his job on the 2nd shift Monday, 
May 7, 1956, at 2:30 P.M. The route he used brought him 
near the place where Clarence was removing head core 
plates from flasks on the Northside stripper run. As Peter 
approached Clarence, the latter deliberately threw some 
hot sand down his open shirt collar. Peter became enraged 
at this and struck Clarence in the mouth with his fist.

Clarence has had trouble with others, with whom he 
works, and this is another, in a series of incidents in which 
he has been involved. (See letter—April 2, 1956 recom­
mending his discharge.) He is a serious threat from a 
safety standpoint as well as affecting morale of others, 
working near him. We feel that he should he discharged.

Peter, from all indications, acted upon impulse when he 
struck Clarence, and was sorry aferwards. He is regular 
and an excellent worker. He has, however, in the past 
shown signs of temper, and should in our opinion, he pun­
ished in some manner for his actions.

We think that, although Peter struck the first blow, 
Clarence did something provocative to incite the attack.

H erbert S trickland 
George W illiamson

/ s /  K . F. H ardin

K. F. Hardin

Defendant’s Exhibit #  18



220

Defendant’ s Exhibit # 1 9

E qual E mploym ent  Opportunity  Commission 
W ashington , D .C. 20506

[emblem]

Mr. Frank Coupland 
American Cast Iron Pipe Co. 
Birmingham, Alabama

Dear S ir:

In reply refer to:
File No. N.O. 6-10-171 

6-9-7604

November 9, 1966

This is to advise you that the field investigation in this 
matter is now completed. If you wish to submit any addi­
tional statement or information concerning this matter to 
the Commission, please do so in writing and mail to the 
undersigned within the next ten (10) days, including any 
plans that you have developed to change practices which 
have been alleged to be discriminatory.

A  report based on such information as is then available, 
will be prepared as a basis for a Commission decision as to 
whether reasonable cause exists to believe that there has 
been violation of Title VII of the Civil Bights Act of 1964 
in this matter.

Thank you for your cooperation during this investigation.

Sincerely,

/ s /  S. W illiam  H ollingsworth 
S. William Hollingsworth 
Equal Employment Officer



221

A merican Cast I ron P ipe Company

P. 0. Box 2603 
Birmingham 2, Alabama

November 18, 1966

Mr. S. William Hollingsworth 
Equal Employment Office 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
Washington, D. C. 20506

Be: Your file—6-10-171 
6-9-7604

Dear Sir:

We acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 9, 1966, 
advising us that the investigation concerning the complaint 
filed by Peter J. Wrenn has now been completed and in­
quiring whether we desired to submit any additional state­
ment or information.
During your visit at our plant, we extended to you the op­
portunity to talk to all witnesses who may have had any 
knowledge concerning the incident leading to the two-week 
disciplinary layoff of Mr. Wrenn, and at your request we 
furnished to you copies of the following documents: Mi­
nutes of the Discipline Committee and statements of em­
ployees concerning this incident; the entire personnel file 
of Mr. Wrenn; the entire personnel file of Mr. Glen Lim- 
baugh, the other employee who was involved in this inci­
dent, and who, likewise, received a two-week disciplinary 
layoff; minutes of meetings of the Discipline Committee 
held since January 1, 1966 to date, and minutes of the 
Auxiliary Board meetings during which this incident was

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2 0



222

discussed; the Employee’s Handbook containing plant 
rules; and five letters written by Mr. Wrenn and other 
members of the Committee for Equal Job Opportunity to 
either the President or Vice President of the United States. 
In addition, we also gave you the opportunity to inspect 
the part of the plant where the incident occurred.

Mr. Wrenn’s complaint is based solely on a charge that the 
two-week disciplinary layoff given to him was “because of 
my activities in trying to eliminate discrimination at the 
plant, including my participation in a previous charge filed 
with the EEOC” . I feel very strongly and sincerely that 
the charge is without any merit whatsoever and that the 
Commission should find no probable cause to exist concern­
ing this charge.

I would like to point out that the disciplinary action im­
posed upon both Mr. Wrenn and Mr. Limbaugh was en­
tirely in accord wtih long-established procedures for the 
handling of such matters and was the unanimous determi­
nation of the Discipline Committee. The management be­
lieves that the action taken by the committee was com­
pletely proper in both cases and that both employees were 
given reasonable and proper discipline.

I would also like to call to your attention the fact that the 
personnel file of Mr. Wrenn shows that the current incident 
was the second time he had been involved in an incident 
with another employee. In May 1956 he was laid off for 
two weeks while the other employee who was considered to 
have provoked the incident was discharged. The report of 
that incident commented that Wrenn had shown signs of 
temper in the past. Thus, technically speaking, Mr. Wrenn 
was subject to discharge on the basis of the current offense

Defendant’s Exhibit #20



223

under our rules. Also, his personnel file reveals that on 
March 25, 1965, Wrenn attempted to countermand the in­
structions of a supervisor without any authority to do so, 
and that no discipline was imposed upon him as a result of 
this occurrence.

You will note also that Mr. Wrenn’s activities in connec­
tion with charges brought against the company alleging 
discrimination are not of recent origin but have been going 
on since 1963. During this period of time the company has 
not desired or attempted to take any reprisals against him 
or against any other employee who has filed charges of dis­
crimination based on race or sex with the EEOC or other 
agencies. I would also call to your attention that one mem­
ber of the Discipline Committee who participated in the 
determination in this case has in fact joined in the filing of 
charges with the EEOC, namely, Elder E. Murray, Vice 
Chairman of the Auxiliary Board. As a matter of fact, on 
August 8, 1964, as evidenced by a memorandum in his per­
sonnel file, Peter Wrenn admitted that he had not been 
made the subject of any reprisals because of his activities. 
I would like to express my appreciation to you for the 
cooperative manner in which you conducted this investiga­
tion. Let me know if you desire any further information 
concerning this matter. I believe there is no merit to this 
charge.

Defendant’s Exhibit #20

Yours truly,



224

Defendant’s Exhibit #21

E qual E mploym ent  Opportunity  C ommission 
W ashington , D.C. 20506

[S eal.]
May 29, 1967

IN REPLY REFER TO:
File No. 6-9-7604 
(NO 6-10-171)
Wrenn, Peter J.

American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
2930 North 16th Street 
Birmingham, Alabama

Gentlemen:

We have received and investigated the charge of discrimi­
nation in employment for reason of race, filed against your 
company on September 15, 1966.

The Commission has determined, after investigation, that 
there is not reasonable cause to believe you have com­
mitted an unlawful employment practice under Title VII 
of the Civil Bights Act of 1964 with respect to the matters 
alleged in the charge.

Therefore, the Commission has dismissed the charge and 
the complainant has been notified accordingly.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  Eric W. Springer 
E ric W. S pringer 
Director of Compliance

Enclosure



225

Defendant’s Exhibit #22

8-11-67 Xerox to Sam Burr
E qual E mploym ent Opportunity Commission 

W ashington , D.C. 20506
[Seal.]

August 9, 1967
IN REPLY REFER TO:
File No. 6-9-7604 
(NO 6-10-171)

American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
2930 North 16th Street 
Birmingham, Alabama

Gentlemen:
This is to inform you that pursuant to Section 1601.19(b) 
of this Commission’s Procedural Regulations, Mr. Peter 
Wrenn has petitioned for reconsideration of the Commis­
sion’s Decision of May 22, 1967, in the above case.
Mr. Wrenn has been requested to send you a copy of the 
additional information upon which he is basing his request 
for reconsideration. We wish to afford you the opportu­
nity to respond and provide additional information if you 
so desire. Please forward to us, within ten days after 
receipt of this letter, any further information you may 
wish to submit for consideration by the Commission.

You and Mr. Wrenn will be advised of the Commission’s 
action in this matter at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely yours,
/ s /  Eric W. Springer 

E ric W. S pringer 
Director of Compliance



226

August 18, 1967
A ir M ail

Mr. Eric W. Springer
Director of Compliance
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Washington, D. C. 20506
Dear Mr. Springer:

Re File No. 6-9-7604 (NO 6-10-171)
Wrenn, Peter J.

On behalf of our client, American Cast Iron Pipe Com­
pany, we acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 9, 
1967, advising the Company that Peter J. Wrenn had 
requested reconsideration of the Commission’s decision of 
May 22, 1967, in the above case.

Mr. Wrenn has not submitted to our client any copies 
of any documents containing additional material evidence 
of any kind and, therefore, our client has no occasion to 
submit any responsive information.

Our client received its copy of the Commission’s decision 
in this matter on June 2, 1967, and we assume that similar 
timely notice of the decision was sent to the charging 
party. It would seem that the charging party’s request for 
reconsideration was not filed within the five-day time limit 
provided by Sec. 1601.19(b) of the Commission’s Rules and 
Regulations.

Yours very truly,

T homas, T aliaferro, F orman , B urr &  M urray 
Samuel H. Burr

SWB :etw/eg
cce: Mr. Kenneth R. Daniel, President 

American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
P. O. Box 2603 
Birmingham, Alabama 35202

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2 3



227

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2 4

E qual E mploym ent Opportunity C ommission 
W ashington , D .C. 20506

[ S e a l . ]

August 25, 1967

IN  REPLY REFER TO :

File No. 6-9-7604 
(NO 6-10-171)

Mr. Samuel H. Burr 
Thomas, Taliaferro, Forman, 

Burr & Murray Law Offices 
1130 Bank for Savings Building 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Dear Mr. Burr:

In response to your letter of August 18, 1967, Mr. Peter 
Wrenn’s petition for reconsideration of the Commission’s 
decision in the above case is dated July 13, 1967. Our letter 
of notification was sent to Mr. Wrenn on May 29, 1967.
Under ordinary circumstances, Mr. Wrenn’s petition for 
reconsideration would be untimely. However, at the time 
Mr. Wrenn was notified of the Commission’s decision, an 
administrative error was made in that notification failed 
to specify the five day time limit for petitioning. This error 
occurred because the Commission’s internal operating pro­
cedures were undergoing substantial revisions at that time. 
Rather than penalize Mr. Wrenn for the failure, we proc­
essed his request.
We have enclosed a copy of the additional information 
upon which Mr. Wrenn has based his request. We are



228

Defendant’s Exhibit #24

affording you again the opportunity to respond if you so 
desire. May we expect your response within ten days after 
receipt of this letter?

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  Eric W. Springer 
E ric W . S pringer 
Director of Compliance

(Enclosed in this letter was a copy of Wrenn’s letter of 
July 13, 1967, heretofore printed as Plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 
1, pp. 9-10, supra.)



229

[emblem]
A mebican Cast Iron Pipe Company

P. 0. Box 2603 
Birmingham 2, Alabama

September 5, 1967
T o : Mr. J. C. King

Chairman, Discipline Committee 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company

Peter J. Wrenn made false and malicious accusations 
against the Company and its officials or employees in a let­
ter dated July 13, 1967, to Stephen Shulman, Chairman, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, with a copy 
being sent by him to the President of the United States; 
and in particularly, a false and malicious accusation that 
the Company had bribed or caused to be bribed, or other­
wise improperly influenced a public official of the United 
States Government in the exercise of his official duties. 
Such accusations are completely without foundation in fact, 
and are so grossly libelous that they cannot be tolerated or 
in any manner condoned. Furthermore, such accusations 
accuse the Company and its representatives of committing 
acts in violation of the criminal statutes of the United 
States. A copy of the letter is attached. Management rec­
ommends discharge of this employee.

/ s /  F. H. Coupland 
F. H. Coupland

Vice President and Works Manager

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2 5



230

M inutes of the  C ommittee for H andling Company 
R ule V iolations

M eeting— S eptember 5, 1967

A meeting of the Committee for Handling Company Rule 
Violations was held on Tuesday, September 5, 1967 at 12:50 
P.M. in the Plant Conference Room.

Those in attendance at this meeting were: F. H. Coupland, 
J. C. King, S. P. Phelps, L. C. Adams, E. B. Ridgeway, 
Elder Murray, Leonard Lewis, George Hairston.

Absent from this meeting—S. F. Carter.

This meeting was called for the purpose of discussing the 
case of #4650 Peter J. Wrenn, an employee of the Mono­
cast Department.

Recommendation was made to the committee, in the form 
of a motion, by Mr. F. H. Coupland to—Discharge #4650 
Peter J. Wrenn—for reasons stated in the attached letter 
dated September 5, 1967 from Mr. F. H. Coupland; in part 
—False, malicious and libelous accusations made by Peter 
J. Wrenn against the Company and its officials or em­
ployees in a letter dated July 13, 1967 to Stephen Shulman, 
Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
with a copy being sent by him to the President of the 
United States.

This motion received a second from George Hairston. A 
vote on the motion was taken and the vote of the committee 
was not unanimous.

One dissenting vote was cast by Leonard Lewis. After the 
vote was taken, Lewis stated the reason for his negative

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2 6



231

Defendant’s Exhibit #26

vote. He stated this case was unique and was not Plant 
Rule Violation, and due to the nature of the case, the deci­
sion should be made by top management. The case was 
referred to Management for disposal.

The meeting of the committee was adjourned at 1 :45 P.M.

/ s /  S. P. Phelps 
S. P. Phelps

SPP/lm



232

M inutes of S pecial M eeting of B oard of M anagement 

S eptember 5, 1967

P resen t : Messrs. K. R. Daniel, P. H. Coupland,
C. P. Farlow, J. G-. Foshee 
and J. W. MacKay

A special meeting of the Board of Management was 
called to study disciplinary action in the case of Peter J. 
Wrenn, Badge Number 4650, on charges of false and mali­
cious accusations against the Company and its officials.

Mr. Coupland stated that Peter J. Wrenn had sent a 
letter dated July 13, 1967 to Stephen Schulman, Chairman, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, containing 
false and malicious accusations against the Company and 
its offiicals or employees, which, in particular, accused the 
Company of bribing or causing to be bribed, or otherwise 
improperly influencing, a public official of the United States 
Government in the exercise of his official duties. A copy 
of the letter was sent by Peter J. Wrenn to the President 
of the United States. This letter was then read by Mr. 
Coupland to the Board of Management. A copy thereof is 
attached to these minutes.

Mr. Coupland stated that the accusations made by Peter 
J. Wrenn were completely without foundation in fact, were 
grossly libelous and accused the Company and its repre­
sentatives of committing acts in violation of the criminal 
statutes of the United States.

Mr. Coupland stated that Management recommended dis­
charge of this employee and that the matter had been re­
ferred to the Discipline Committee. He further stated that

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2 7



233

the Discipline Committee after considering the matter had 
failed to reach a unanimous agreement and that the matter 
was therefore being referred to the Board of Management.

After full discussion and consideration of his false and 
malicious charges against the Company and its representa­
tives, the Board of Management on motion made by Mr. 
Coupland and seconded by Mr. Farlow, unanimously voted 
to discharge Peter J. Wrenn.

Meeting adjourned.

Defendant’s Exhibit #27

Secretary President

(Attached to this Exhibit was a copy of Wrenn’s July 13, 
1967 heretofore printed pp. 9-10, supra.)



234

[E m blem ]

F. H. COUPLAND
VICE PRESIDENT 

AND

W ORKS M ANAGER

A merican Cast I ron P ipe Company

P. O. Box 2603 
Birmingham, Alabama 35202

September 28, 1967 

Dr. Wesley N. Harry
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
Birmingham, Alabama

Re: Complaint of Peter J. Wrenn 
N. 0. 68-9-355E
Charge dated September 7, 1967

Dear Sir:

On Friday, September 22, 1967 you served a copy of the 
above charge on us and requested that we submit to you 
a written statement of position concerning this charge 
and that we furnish you with copies of certain documents 
examined by you in our office.

Mr. Wrenn was discharged on September 5, 1967, because 
he made false and malicious accusations in a letter dated 
July 13, 1967 to Stephen Shulman, Chairman, Equal Op­
portunity Commission, a copy of which letter was sent 
by him to the President of the United States, accusing

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2 8



235

the Company of falsely and maliciously, and without any 
foundation in fact, of bribing, or causing to be bribed, 
or otherwise improperly influencing a public official of 
the United States Government in the exercise of his offi­
cial duties. Management felt that such reckless, defama­
tory and libelous accusations against our Company, its 
officials or employees, could not be tolerated. In his sworn 
charge, Mr. Wrenn ackowledged writing this letter, at­
tached a copy of the letter to his charge, but erroneously 
referred to the letter in his charge as being dated July 7, 
1967.

Mr. Wrenn’s libelous and reckless letter of July 13, 1967 
was occasioned by the Commission’s decision that our 
Company had not violated Title VII by laying him off for 
two weeks on September 13, 1966. Mr. Wrenn had filed 
a charge based on this disciplinary lay off, which was 
investigated by S. William Hollingsworth, Jr. of the New 
Orleans Regional Office of the Commission in Case No. 
6-10-171. For your convenience I am enclosing a copy of 
this charge, a copy of my letter to Mr. Hollingsworth 
dated November 18, 1966, together with copies of the 
minutes of our Discipline committee, which approved the 
two-weeks layoff, and statements of employees concerning 
this incident.

By letter dated May 29, 1967, we were advised that the 
Commission had determined that there was no reasonable 
cause to believe the Company had violated Title VII with 
respect to Mr. Wrenn’s charge. I am enclosing a copy of 
this letter and the Commission’s decision attached thereto. 
By letter dated August 9, 1967, a copy of which is at­
tached, the Commission advised us that Mr. Wrenn had 
petitioned for reconsideration of the Commission’s deci­

Defendant’s Exhibit #28



236

sion and that Mr. Wrenn had been requested by the Com­
mission to furnish us with a copy of additional information 
furnished by him to the Commission. Mr. Wrenn did not 
submit any material to us, as requested by the Commission. 
On August 18, 1967 our attorneys wrote the Commission 
on our behalf advising that Mr. Wrenn had not submitted 
any additional material and that it appeared that his 
request for reconsideration was untimely.

Our attorneys received a reply from the Commission dated 
August 25, 1967, which enclosed the July 13, 1967 letter of 
Mr. Wrenn. A copy of the letter from the Commission 
and the enclosure is attached. This letter and the en­
closure were delivered by our attorneys to Mr. K. R. 
Daniel, President of our Company, who informed me, Au­
gust 31, 1967, about the contents of Mr. Wrenn’s letter. 
This was the first knowledge we received concerning the 
accusations made by Mr. Wrenn in his letter of July 13, 
1967. We determined that this matter should be submitted 
to the Discipline Committee.

On September 5, 1967, Mr. W. G. Hairston, Superintendent 
of the Mono-Cast Department, called Mr. Wrenn and re­
quested that Mr. Wrenn meet with Mr. Hairston and my­
self in my office at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Wrenn did not keep his 
11:30 appointment with Mr. Hairston and me. The Dis­
cipline Committee met at approximately 12:50 p.m. to 
consider the case. Mr. King presented to the Discipline 
Committee a recommendation made by me that Mr. Wrenn 
be discharged because of his false and malicious accusa­
tions. A copy of this recommendation is attached. The 
letter of July 13, 1967, written by Mr. Wrenn, was presented 
and discussed. After considerable discussion, the Dis­
cipline Committee could not reach a unanimous decision

Defendant’s Exhibit #28



237

and the matter was therefore referred to management for 
decision. A copy of the minutes of the Discipline Com­
mittee meeting is attached.

You requested information concerning the composition of 
this committee. This committee is normally composed of 
myself, as Works Manager; S. F. Carter, as Assistant 
Works Manager; J. C. King, as Plant Personnel Director; 
S. P. Phelps, as Employment Manager; the Department 
Head involved (in this case, W. G. Hairston); G. B. Ham- 
lett, Chairman of the Board of Operatives; E. B. Ridge­
way, Chairman of the Working Conditions Committee of 
the Board of Operatives; Peter J. Wrenn, Chairman of 
the Auxiliary Board, and Leonard Lewis, Chairman of the 
Working and Living Conditions Committee of the Aux­
iliary Board. Mr. S. F. Carter was absent, being out of 
town. Mr. L. C. Adams, Vice Chairman of the Board of 
Operatives, tilled in for Mr. G. B. Hamlett, who was on 
vacation, Mr. Earl Murray, Vice Chairman of the Aux­
iliary Board, served in the place of Mr. Wrenn, who was 
personally involved in this case. Mr. Earl Murray and 
Mr. Leonard Lewis are Negroes. The composition and 
function of the Discipline Committee is set out on pages 31 
and 32 of our Employees’ Manual, a copy of which has 
been furnished you.

Upon adjournment of the Discipline Committee, I in­
formed Mr. Daniel that the Discipline Committee had 
failed to reach a unanimous decision. A special meeting 
of the Board of Management was held that afternoon, 
for consideration and decision on this matter. The Board 
of Management unanimously voted to discharge Mr. Wrenn. 
A copy of the minutes of this special meeting is attached.

Defendant’s Exhibit # 2 8



238

I returned to my office and was told that Mr. Wrenn was 
now in the Service Building. I requested Mr. Hairston 
to send for Mr. Wrenn and asked that both come to my 
office. Mr. Wrenn and Mr. Hairston came to my office and 
I placed Mr. Wrenn’s letter dated July 13, 1967 in front 
of him and asked him if he was familiar with this letter. 
He read both pages of the letter very carefully and acknowl­
edged that he was familiar with it. I asked him, “Did you 
write this letter?” and he replied “Yes.” I then asked him 
if the signature appearing on the letter was his. He said 
it was. I then read to Mr. Wrenn the charges made against 
him, which were presented to the Discipline Committee and 
then to the Board of Management. I then informed Mr. 
Wrenn that he was discharged.

We believe that the false and malicious accusations made 
by Mr. Wrenn against the American Cast Iron Pipe Com­
pany in itself merited the discharge of this employee rather 
than any other minimum penalty. To our knowledge, no 
such charge has ever before been made against our Com­
pany in its entire history. I would assure you that similar 
action of discharge would be taken in any case of this na­
ture, regardless of the race, creed, color or other status of 
the person involved.

As pointed out in our letter to Mr. Hollingsworth, the two 
weeks layoff of Mr. Wrenn in September, 1966 was the 
second time he has been involved in an incident with an­
other employee. In May, 1956, he was laid off for two 
weeks while the other employee who was considered to have 
provoked the incident was discharged. The report of the 
incident dated May 9, 1956, a copy of which is attached, 
commented that Mr. Wrenn had shown signs of temper in 
the past. Thus, technically speaking, Mr. Wrenn was sub­

Defendant’s Exhibit #28



239

ject to discharge in September, 1966 on the basis of the 
September, 1966 incident under our rules. Also, his per­
sonnel file reveals that on March 25, 1965 Mr. Wrenn at­
tempted to countermand the instructions of a supervisor 
without authority to do so, with no discipline being im­
posed upon him as a result. In fact, we believe we have 
bent over backwards in the case of Mr. Wrenn in attempt­
ing to treat him most fairly. For your information, Mr. 
Wrenn was given a promotion on August 17, 1965 from 
flask cleaning station operator to casting machine operator, 
with an increase in pay of 44 cents per hour. As the Com­
mission’s files will reveal, many of our Negro employees 
have filed charges with the Commission, none of whom 
have been retaliated against in any way. Some of them, like 
Mr. Wrenn, have received promotions subsequent to the 
filing of charges with the Commission, or the President’s 
Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.

I would like to express my appreciation to you for the busi­
ness-like manner in which you conducted this investiga­
tion. Let me know if you desire any further information 
concerning this matter. I sincerely believe that there is no 
merit to this charge.

Yours very truly,

jls
Enclosures

Defendant’s Exhibit #28



240

H eadquarters

U nited S tates A rm y  M ateriel C ommand 
E qual E mploym ent  Opportunity  Oeeice

[S eal.]

Defendant’ s Exhibit # 2 9

IN REPLY REFER TO
AMXBI-IRS

Mr. J. G. Foshee, Treasurer 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
P. 0. Box 2603 
Birmingham 2, Alabama

26 November 1963

Dear Mr. Foshee:

I have on this date received a copy of a complaint against 
the American Cast Iron Pipe Company, Birmingham, Ala­
bama, alleging racial discrimination in upgrading.

The complaint is filed by one of your employees, Mr. 
Peter J. Wrenn.

I have notified Mr. Wrenn that I will be in Birmingham 
on 3 December 1963 to discuss his case with him. On 4 
December 1963, I would like to have the opportunity of 
discussing the matter with you or with the proper official 
of your administrative structure. I am addressing this 
letter to you because I have your name on recent corre­
spondence in which I requested a copy of Form 40 for 1962.

In connection with my discussion with management, it 
will be necessary for me to do a Compliance Review of 
your Equal Employment Opportunity program.

I will need to have at my disposal the following docu­
ments or records:



241

1. Collective bargaining agreement.
2. Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity pol­

icy.
3. Recruitment procedures, including copies of adver­

tising and letters mailed to employment sources 
indicating that your company is an Equal Oppor­
tunity employer.

4. Line of promotion charts, which indicate jobs in
which Negroes are now employed.

5. Recall lists.
6. Job classifications and job descriptions.

There will be other records that I will need to examine, 
such as your personnel files and payroll records, but it will 
not be necessary for you to have this information on your 
desk at the time of my conference.

I will try to get into Birmingham in time on 3 December 
to call you to make arrangements for our meeting on the 
4th. If I do not arrive in time, I will call you first thing 
Wednesday morning.

Defendant’s Exhibit #29

Sincerely,

/ s /  Hugh A. Brimm 
H ugh  A. B rimm  
Chief, Equal Employment 

Opportunity OfiSce



242

H eadquarters 
D epartment of the  A rm y  

Office of the  A ssistant S ecretary 
W ashington , D .C.

[S eal.]

August 5, 1964
Mr. Frank Coupland 
Executive Vice-President 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
Birmingham, Alabama

Dear Mr. Coupland:

The Department of the Army has been advised by the 
President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity 
that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations 
of discrimination filed by Mr. Peter J. Wrenn against your 
company and that the case file has been closed.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

/ s /  John S. Wilson 
J ohn  S. W ilson 
Colonel, GS
Director, Fair Employment Program

Defendant’s Exhibit # 3 0



243

[E mblem]

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
HEADQUARTERS

U N ITED  STATES A R M Y  M ATERIEL COM MAND 

EQUAL EM PLO Y M E N T OPPORTUNITY OFFICE

A t l a n t a  A r m y  D e p o t  

F o r e s t  P a r k , G e o r g i a  30050
amcal-eeo July 26,1965

Mr. Frank Coupland, Vice President 
and Works Manager 

American Cast Iron Pipe Company 
2930 North Sixteenth Street 
Birmingham, Alabama

Dear Mr. Coupland:

This will confirm in writing the recommendations which 
were made to you by Mr. Wesley Toles and the undersigned 
on last Thursday morning, July 22.

After an extensive Compliance Review of your Equal 
Employment Opportunity policy, and in further view of the 
complaints which have been filed against the company, we 
are asking that you reply through this office to the Com­
manding General of United States Army Materiel Com­
mand, setting forth a “blue print for action” that will 
move the American Cast Iron Pipe Company toward the 
achievement of the specific goals which are outlined below.

It is further understood that an assessment of your prog­
ress will be made by a Follow-up Review at the end of ap­
proximately ninety (90) days, and a second Review on or 
about January 1, 1966. It is anticipated that all of the 
objectives will have been realized by this latter date.

Defendant’s Exhibit #31



244

Through the Washington level of United States Army 
Materiel Command, we are making an effort to hold in 
abeyance, all complaints which are filed during this period 
of time. If possible, this will also include any complaints 
that might be filed with the newly established Equal Em­
ployment Opportunity Commission. However, in the event 
that complaints are filed, we will endeavor to make these 
available to you as a matter of information, but such com­
plaints it is hoped will not call for an investigation during 
the next five (5) months.

The first general area of objectives lies in the communica­
tion of your Equal Employment Opportunity policy, not 
only to Management and supervisory personnel, hut also 
to line and staff employees. Such communication should 
deal specifically with the following:

1. A written policy statement to be prepared and given 
to all employees at American Cast Iron Pipe Company. It 
is recognized that you have already presented the com­
pany’s policy in a series of slides which have been viewed 
by all of the employees, both white and Negro. From the 
description which you gave of this set of slides and the 
accompanying lecture, it is recognized that you have done 
a thorough job, however you need to have a specifically 
written policy statement and this should be in the hands 
of all of your employees. You indicated that it might be 
possible to include this in the pay envelope at sometime in 
the future. When this is done, please send this office a copy 
of the statement.

2. Equal Employment Opportunity posters to be placed 
in each working area of the plant. It was suggested by you 
that perhaps the time has come to have glass covered bulle­
tin boards in strategic areas of the plant where such posters

Defendant’s Exhibit #31



245

and permanent announcements can be kept. I am sending 
you a supply of the posters to be used for this purpose.

3. Preparation and issuance of a handbook to all em­
ployees of American Cast Iron Pipe Company which will 
include such matters as the company’s Equal Employment 
Opportunity statement, a clear statement of the testing 
policy, as well as other information that will inform the 
employees of their job status, opportunities, etc. It was sug­
gested that a page from the handbook be prepared so that 
it can be detached and on this page, the employee to whom 
the handbook was issued will sign his name indicating that 
he has read the handbook and that he understands the com­
pany’s policy. This page then should be inserted in the 
personnel folder for each employee. This will furnish you 
with a document that indicates at least that the employee 
is familiar with your policy.

4. Provide each employee with a statement of his achieve­
ment level at the present time. This will provide you with 
another opportunity to explain your testing policy and to 
make it clear to each employee that he has an opportunity 
to take the test again and to improve his achievement level 
and thus be eligible to promote when jobs become available.

5. Have a clear understanding with all supervisory per­
sonnel down to Foremen and Assistant Foremen that they 
are to stop immediately the harassment of Negro employees 
because of their activity in connection with the desegrega­
tion of the Cafeteria and other personnel facilities of the 
plant. You were furnished specific names in this instance, 
and it was our understanding that you were going to talk 
with these people at the earliest possible moment.

Defendant’s Exhibit #31



246

Again, for a matter of your record, it might be well for 
you to have a signed statement from all of your supervisory 
personnel, including Foremen that your policy of Equal 
Employment Opportunity is clearly understood by them 
and that they are expected to give you assistance in carry­
ing out this policy.

A second area of recommendations involves the specific 
implementation of your Equal Employment Opportunity 
policy. It is recognized in setting forth the following objec­
tives that in some instances you are already on the way 
toward realization of these goals. However, there are still 
steps that need to be taken in each of the following items :

1. Seek the referral of qualified Negro applicants to 
American Cast Iron Pipe Company by recognised com­
munity agencies. As a result of the testing program which 
you recently established for all new hires, you recognize 
that the number of qualified Negroes has dropped consider­
ably. You state that it has always been the policy of the 
company to count on walk-in applicants to replace those 
who have dropped from the ranks or who are hired to take 
care of increased production.

The time apparently has come when it will be necessary 
to deviate from this pattern of the past and now it will be 
necessary for you to aggressively seek for persons who are 
qualified to fill these jobs.

2. Maintain an audit of all personnel actions of hiring 
and upgrading to insure that your Equal Employment 
Opportunty policy is being carried out. This information 
will be of basic importance to the Follow-up Eeview that 
we will conduct in the next ninety (90) days. It should be 
kept in tabulated form.

Defendant’s Exhibit #31



247

3. Continue your efforts to break the pattern of the all- 
white and the all-Negro jobs in the problem areas of your 
operation. These include the Ramming Station and the 
Cleaning Shed where most employees are Negroes and the 
Steel Mill, where the predominance of employees are white.

4. The elimination of segregated clock alleys, pay lines, 
locker rooms, infirmary waiting rooms and other employee 
facilities. It is our understanding that you have already 
eliminated some of the segregated clock alleys and that you 
have adopted a policy of no longer making assignments of 
locker rooms. It is important that this information be 
communicated to your employees and in this connection, 
it would be well to have the clearly stated policy which is 
communicated to all the employees to the effect that there 
is equal access of each employee to any facility of the plant.

5. The elimination of segregated night school classes. 
In the continuation of your night school program, you 
should not have the same classes offered on a segregated 
basis to your white and Negro employees. It will be per­
missible for you to establish achievement levels or to 
establish a pre-requisite requirement for certain courses, 
provided these requirements are reasonable and equitably 
applied.

6. The elimination of separate meetings between Man­
agement, the Board of Operatives and the Auxiliary Board.

In your comment on this, you indicated that it might be 
necessary to take legal action by the courts to change this 
policy. It is recognized that this will probably be time 
consuming. At the same time, you will indicate what steps 
have been taken to move in this direction.

Defendant’s Exhibit #31



248

It will be necessary for us to have a reply from you in 
the very near future indicating your intention to move 
toward the implementation of these recommendations. It 
is recognized that some of these items can he taken care of 
immediately, and that others will take more time and plan­
ning. Please be assured that if there is any assistance that 
this office can give you or if there is any clarification 
needed on the above mentioned recommendations, please 
feel free to call on us.

Sincerely,

/ s /  Hugh A. Brimm 
H ugh A. B rimm  
Chief, Equal Employment 

Opportunity Office

Defendant’s Exhibit #31

Copy furnished:

Mr Wesley Toles, Chief 
Cleveland, Ohio EEO Ofc

Mr David A. Sawyer, USAMC 
Washington, DC



249

The motion of petitioner, Peter J. Wrenn, for injunctive 
relief pending the appeal in this cause came on to be heard 
on the 18th day of December, 1967, pursuant to order en­
tered by this Court on the 28th day of November, 1967, and 
the Court having considered said motion, the affidavit of 
Peter J. Wrenn filed in support thereof and the exhibits 
thereto, and having considered the motion of defendant to 
dismiss said motion of Peter J. Wrenn and having con­
sidered the oral evidence offered in court on behalf of 
said movant and the defendant and the documentary evi­
dence introduced at said trial consisting of movant’s Ex­
hibits No. 1 through 11, both inclusive, and defendant’s 
Exhibits No. 1 through 35, both inclusive, the Court finds 
the facts and states the conclusions of law and enters its 
order thereon hereinafter set out. At the conclusion of the 
oral hearing, the Court announced in open court to the 
parties and their attorneys that it had grave doubts 
whether it could consider as an ancillary matter to the 
above-styled action the granting of the temporary relief 
sought by movant praying in substance for a mandatory 
preliminary injunction requiring his reinstatement as an 
employee pending the resolution of the appeal now pend­
ing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth 
Circuit, in the light of this Court’s ruling dismissing the 
above-styled action for failure of the jurisdictional pre­
requisite of conciliation in conformity with this Court’s 
decision and opinion in Dent v. St. Loms-San Francisco 
Rwy. Co., 265 F. Supp. 56, and because the matters raised 
by the motion constituted new and independent matters 
not involved in the action under appeal. The Court fur­
ther announced that in view of the fact that the motion

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief



250

had been set down for evidentiary hearing which had just 
been concluded and at which the parties had been given 
opportunity to present and had presented extensive evi­
dence as to the substantive issues raised by the motion, 
the ends of speedy justice would not be served by dismiss­
ing the motion on procedural grounds with leave to refile 
as a new action, and that the Court had the power to pro­
ceed to consider the motion as a separate and independent 
action without requiring such refiling. The Court has pro­
ceeded accordingly, and now sets out hereinafter its Find­
ings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

F indings of F act

1. For many years prior to September 5, 1967, the mov­
ant, Peter J. Wrenn, was in the employment of the de­
fendant and while so employed movant filed charges of 
discriminatory employment practices against defendant 
with the President’s Committee on Equal Employment 
Opportunity prior to the effective date of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 and subsequent to the effective date of that 
Act movant has filed other additional charges of discrimi­
natory employment practices with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, on some of which findings of rea­
sonable cause have been made by the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission and which have been the basis 
upon which the above-styled cause was filed in this court 
on May 13, 1966.

2. That in September, 1966, the movant, Peter J. Wrenn, 
and a white employee named Glenn Limbaugh were both 
given a two weeks disciplinary layoff by the defendant as 
a result of an altercation or incident between the two em­

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief



251

ployees. The lay off given the movant was not caused by 
any previous action taken by the movant in filing discrim­
inatory employment practice charges against his employer 
or because he participated in any investigation or proceed­
ings concerning such charges.

3. That subsequent to his two weeks disciplinary lay 
off the movant filed his own individual charge with the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in EEOC 
Case No. 6-10-171, alleging such lay off violated Title VII. 
This charge was investigated by S. William Hollingsworth, 
Jr., an investigator of the Commission. On May 22, 1967, 
the Commission entered a decision determining that there 
was no reasonable cause to believe the two weeks discip­
linary lay off violated Title VII and notified the movant 
and the defendant of such decision by letter dated May 
29, 1967.

4. That on July 13, 1967, the movant mailed a letter to 
Mr. Stephen Shulman, Chairman of the Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission and mailed a copy of such 
letter to the President of the United States, which letter 
included false and untrue accusations, thinly veiled as con­
clusions but nonetheless effectively accusing the Company 
of buying and Mr. Hollingsworth of providing cover-up 
protection in the conduct of his investigation. The letter 
also made similar accusations with respect to a Dr. Hugh 
Brimm, a government representative, who had previously 
conducted Equal Employment compliance investigations 
and reviews on behalf of the Department of the Arjtny 
under Executive Order 10925. Dr. Brimm had no knowl­
edge of and had not taken any part in the investigation 
of the movant’s individual complaint relating to his two

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief



252

weeks disciplinary lay off. The movant presented the con­
tents of his letter, including such false accusations, to a 
group of employees of the defendant company who were 
members of a group of defendant’s employees self-styled 
as “ Committee for Equal Job Opportunity” , of which mov­
ant was chairman, at a meeting held on the Sunday prior 
to mailing said letter.

5. That the testimony adduced at the hearing upon mo­
tion for preliminary injunction before this Court including 
the testimony of Peter J. Wrenn upon cross examination 
shows conclusively that his letter of July 13, 1967 was 
signed and mailed when the movant had no basis in fact 
whatsoever which would justify his accusation that the 
Company had in some way bribed or otherwise improperly 
influenced either Mr. Hollingsworth or Dr. Brimm in the 
exercise of their official duties.

6. That the letter of July 13, 1967 was accepted by the 
Equal Emoployment Opportunity Commission as a Peti­
tion for Reconsideration in Case No. 6-10-171, although it 
was untimely filed under the Commission’s procedural reg­
ulations, Section 1601-19(b), published in the Federal 
Register June 30, 1965 (30 F.R. 8407). The Commission 
thereafter mailed a copy of the letter of July 13, 1967 to 
counsel for the defendant company for the purpose of giv­
ing the defendant company an opportunity to make any 
reply it desired concerning such letter. The copy of mov­
ant’s said letter of July 13, 1967, reached defendant’s offi­
cers on August 31, 1967, and disciplinary action was 
promptly instituted against movant, Peter J. Wrenn, cul­
minating in movant’s discharge from defendant’s employ

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief



253

on the basis of the false charge of bribery made against 
the defendant and its management in said letter dated 
July 13, 1967 on September 5, 1967, the first workday fol­
lowing the shutdown of the defendant’s plant for Labor 
Day weekend.

7. Since 1963 other Negro employees of defendant in 
conjunction with movant, and on occasions separately, have 
filed charges of discriminatory employment practices 
against the defendant including charges made in October, 
1964, over the typed names of over 100 employees, follow­
up charges in December, 1964, and March, 1965, by a group 
of five employees of which movant was one, and additional 
charges in June, 1965, all of which charges were investi­
gated by Dr. Hugh Brimm and other representatives of 
the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Oppor­
tunity. Subsequent to July 2, 1965, additional unfair 
employment practice charges were made to the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission by the aforesaid 
group of defendant’s employees who called themselves the 
“ Committee for Equal Job Opportunity,” and in October, 
1966 additional charges were filed with the Equal Employ­
ment Opportunity Commission by over 200 of defendant’s 
employees, including movant.

8. The undisputed evidence presented to the Court es­
tablishes and the Court so finds that subsequent to the filing 
of the aforesaid charges the defendant has taken no act 
of reprisal or intimidation against any of its employees 
filing said charges and that the defendant has upgraded 
some of said charging Negro employees, including movant, 
in their jobs with the defendant as vacancies have occurred 
affording opportunities for upgrading.

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief



254

9. The Court finds that the discharge of movant by de­
fendant from employment on September 5, 1967, was for 
good and sufficient cause in no way motivated by an inten­
tion to retaliate or inflict reprisal against movant for filing 
and prosecuting any charge of discriminatory employment 
practice made by him and that such discharge did not con­
travene the provisions of, or constitute an unlawful em­
ployment practice under, Section 704(a) of the Civil Eights 
Act of 1964.

Conclusions of L aw

1. The Court has the power to consider and pass upon 
the motion of petitioner, Peter J. Wrenn, for injunctive 
relief as a separate and independent matter although the 
motion was originally filed in this court as a supplemental 
proceeding pending the appeal in the above-styled case.

2. An employer has the right to terminate for cause the 
employment relationship between it and an employee who 
wilfully, knowingly and maliciously accuses his employer 
falsely of bribing or causing to be bribed or otherwise im­
properly influenced a public official of the United States 
Government in the exercise of his official duties, a criminal 
offense under the statutes of the United States.

3. Section 704(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does 
not prohibit the defendant from discharging movant, Peter 
J. Wrenn, for the cause and under the circumstances dis­
closed by the evidence adduced at the hearing on movant’s 
motion for injunctive relief.

4. The movant, Peter J. Wrenn, is not entitled to the 
relief prayel for in his petition.

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief



255

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief

Obdeb

The Court having considered the motion of petitioner, 
Peter J. Wrenn, for injunctive relief as a separate and 
independent matter from the above-styled action which is 
pending on appeal, the substantial issues raised by defen­
dant’s motion to dismiss the motion for injunctive relief 
have been obviated, and accordingly it is ordered that 
defendant’s motion to dismiss said motion for injunctive 
relief be and the same is hereby denied.

In accordance with the foregoing, an order will be en­
tered, denying petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief.

Done this 21st day of December, 1967.

[ S e a l . ]

/ s /  Seybourn H. Lynne 
Judge

A  True Copy 
William E. Davis, Clerk 
United States District Court 
Northern District of Alabama

By:
Deputy Clerk.



256

In conformity with the Findings of Fact and Conclu­
sions of Law contemporaneously filed herewith and for 
good cause shown:

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the motion of 
petitioner, Peter J. Wrenn, for injunctive relief be and the 
same is hereby denied.

D one this 21st day of December, 1967.

Order Denying Motion of Petitioner
Peter J. Wrenn for Injunctive Relief

[S eal.]

/ s /  Seybourn H. Lynne 
Judge

A  True Copy 
William E. Davis, Clerk 
United States District Court 
Northern District of Alabama

By: ..............................
Deputy Clerk.



257

Notice of Appeal

Notice is hereby given that Rush Pettway & Peter J. 
Wrenn, et al., individually and on behalf of others simi­
larly situated, the plaintiffs herein, hereby appeal to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 
an Order of the United States District Court for the North­
ern District of Alabama, Southern Division, denying in­
junctive relief, said Order dated December 21, 1967 and 
filed on that date in the Clerk’s Office.

This notice dated January 15, 1968.

A dams &  B ubo 
1630 Fourth Avenue, North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Jack Greenberg
L eroy D. Clark
R obert B elton 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York, 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs



258

Certificate of Service

U nited States of A merica 
N orthern D istrict of A labama

I, William E. Davis, Clerk of the United States District 
Court for the Northern District of Alabama do hereby 
certify that the foregoing pages numbered from one (1) 
to thirty-five (35), both inclusive, comprise the original 
pleadings in this action and are herewith attached as a full, 
true and correct transcript of the record on appeal in the 
Matter of Rush Pettway, Peter J. Wrenn, et al., individu­
ally and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff s- 
Appellants and United States Equal Employment Oppor­
tunity Commission, Intervenor-Appellant, vs. American 
Cast Iron Pipe Company, a corporation, Defendant-Appel­
lee, Civil Action 66-315, Southern Division, as fully as the 
same appears of record and on file in my office.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my 
name and affixed the seal of said Court at Birmingham, 
Alabama, in said District, on this 5th day of February, 
1968.

[S eal.]

/ s /  William E. Davis
W illiam E. D avis, Clerk 
United States District Court.



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C .«<gg^> 219