"Judge" Constance Baker Motley Takes Another Giant Step

    “IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
sdjigd seo mE oe 
FOR THE EASTERN D 3ICT. OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WILMINGTON DIVISION 

NIE M. BRINKLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

NO. 
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA 
COMPANY, a Maryland Corporation, 

Defendant. 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Plaintiff moves the Court to advance this case on the 

docket, order a speedy hearing at the earliest practicable 

date, cause this case to be in every way expedited, fand upon 

such hearing to: 

= 1. Grant plaintiff and the class she represents a 

preliminary injunction enjoining defendant, The Gri t Atlantic 

& Pacific Tea Company, Inc., its agents, successors, employees, 

attorneys, and those acting in concert with them ai id at their 

direction from continuing or maintaining the policy, practice, 

custom, and usage of denying, abridging, withholding, condi- 

tioning, limiting or otherwise interfering with the right of 

plaintiff to employment as a cashier at defendant's markets 

and/or stores in Wilmington, North Carolina on the basis of 

~ race and color. 

Pn. 2. Grant plaintiff and the class she represents a 

_preliininary injunction enjoining defendant, the Great Atlantic 

& @ Pacific Tea POMpanys Inc., its agents, successors, employees. 

attorneys ;y and Ging acting in concert with them and at thee 



direction from co g or maintaining the polity: practice, 

custom, and us ge of denying, abridging, withholdine ; condi- 

tioning, Limi 2ReU Be therwise interfering with ‘the rights of 

plaintiff and others similarly situated to eniol equal employ- 

ment opportunity as secured by Title VII of the Act known: as 

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq. and 

Title 42 U.S.C. §1981 without discrimination on the basis of 

race and color, including specifically the maintenance of any 

policy, practice, custom, or usage of refusing to employ 

Negro cashiers and staff personnel or limiting the number of 

same in the State of North Carolina. = 

3. Grant plaintiff, Annie M, Brinkley, back pay from the 

time of defendant's wrongful denial of employment to the 

present. 

As grounds for the motion plaintiff states that: | 

1. The policies and practices heretofore masts by 

defendant are contrary to Title VII of "The Civil Rights Act of 

1964" and 42 U.S.C. §1981; 

2. Unless restrained by this Court, defeneant will con- 

tinue to discriminate against plaintiff and the class she 

represents; ss z 

3. Such action by the defendant will result in irreparable 

injury, loss and damage to the plaintiff and others similarly 

situated as more particularly appears from the complaint and 

will further appear from other pleadings and documentary evi- 

dence to be filed in this case, and ore tenus and documentary 

evidence which plaintiff will present at the hearing of this 

motion; 

4, The issuance of a preliminary injunction herein 

will not cause undue inconvenience or loss to defendant, but 

will prevent irreparable injury to plaintiff and others 

similarly Pie : 

aa
d 



WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that the motion for preliminary 

injunction be granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Conrad O, Pearson 
203% East Chapel Hill Street 
Durham, North Carolina 

J. LeVonne Chambers 
405% East Trade Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 

Lisbon Berry 
511% North Fourth Street 
Wilmington, North Carolina 

Jack Greenberg 
Leroy D. Clark 
Michael Meltsner 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Attorneys for Plaintiff