Bazemore v. Friday Joint Appendix
Public Court Documents
November 12, 1985
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Bazemore v. Friday Joint Appendix, 1985. 511d8e12-c39a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/fde6aeca-41f9-452e-945b-2bbd14d5bdb5/bazemore-v-friday-joint-appendix. Accessed July 05, 2025.
Copied!
Nos. 85-93 and 85-428
M tf)t Supreme Court of tfje ZBntteti states.
October T erm, 1985
P.E. Bazemore, et al., petitioners
V.
W illiam C. F riday, et al.
U nited States of A merica, et al., petitioners
v .
W illiam C. F riday, et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STA TES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOINT APPENDIX
Howard E. Manning, Sr.
Howard E. Manning, J r.
Manning, Fulton & Skinner
801 Wachovia Bank Building
Post Office Box 1150
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919) 828-8295
Counsel fo r Respondents
Charles Fried
Solicitor General
Department o f Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 633-2217
Counsel fo r Petitioners
United States o f America,
et al.
Eric Schnapper
NAACP Legal Defense &
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street,
16th Floor
New York, New York 10013
(212) 219-1900
Counsel fo r Petitioners
P. E. Bazemore, et al.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NO. 85-93
FILED JULY 15, 1985
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IN NO. 85-428
FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 1985
CERTIORARI GRANTED NOVEMBER 12, 1985
3 n tf)c Suprem e Court of tt)e H m teb s t a t e s
O ctober T erm , 1985
No. 85-93
P.E. Bazemore, et a l ., petitioners
V.
W illiam C. F riday, et a l .
No. 85-428
U nited States of A merica , et al ., petitioners
v.
W illiam C. F riday, et a l .
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED ST A TES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOINT APPENDIX
INDEX*
Page
Chronological Fist of Docket Entries from the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit .................................................. 1
Chronological Fist of Docket Entries from the
United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina................................... 5
Memorandum of Decision and Order of October 9,
1979 [C.A. App. 20-30]........... 73
Order of July 29, 1981 [C.A. A p#31-32].............. 86
*The opinions of the district court and the court of appeals are printed
in the separately bound appendix to the petition in No. 85-93. The
notice of judgment of the court of appeals is printed in the appendix
bound with the petition in No. 85-428.
( i )
II
Index —Continued: Page
Transcript of Trial Testimony of Thomas Blalock
(excerpts) [Tr. 3811, line 2 thru Tr. 3814, line 3
(C.A. App. 888-891); Tr. 3907, line 11 thru Tr.
3914, line 6 (C.A. App. 896-903)]....................... 88
Transcript of Trial Testimony of Donald Stormer
(excerpts) [Tr. 4979, line 13 thru Tr. 4980, line 2
(C.A. App. 1097-1098); Tr. 4986, line 14 thru Tr.
4988, line 18 (C.A. App. 1100-1102); Tr. 4992,
line 12 thru Tr. 4996, line 21 (C.A. App.
1106-1110); Tr. 5028, line 1 thru Tr. 5032, line 21
(C.A. App. 1125-1129)]....................................... 94
Government Exhibits
GX 30 —Membership in Extension Home-
maker Clubs 1966-1972 [C.A. App.
1797-1805]................................................... 103
GX 69 —County Extension Chairman Ap
pointm ents 1968-1981 [C.A. App.
1736-1742]........................................................ 114
GX 74 —Promotions to County Chairman
1962-1981 [C.A. App. 1745]........................... 127
GX 98 —Analysis of 1971 Effort to Equalize
Salaries of Blacks and Whites [C.A. App.
1560] ............................................................ 128
GX 157 (excerpt) —Handwritten Memoran
dum on Salary Adjustments by Thomas
Blalock, 1971, 1ft 7-21 [C.A. App.
1605-1609].................................................... 129
GX 173 — USDA Memorandum of May 9,
1978 on Trends in State 4-H Affirmative Ac
tion Programs [C.A. App. 1810-1813]......... 131
GX 182 (excerpts) —1974 Civil Rights Initia
tives for Discussion at Meeting on April 5,
1974 (Draft), 3 & 7 [C.A. App.
1823-1824, 1827]........................................... 135
Ill
Government Exhibits— Continued: Page
GX 184 —Memorandum of May 3, 1974, with
1974 Civil Rights Initiatives [C.A. App.
1832-1836].......................................... 137
GX 191-Memorandum of March 31, 1977
on Affirmative Action Initiatives for 4-H
and Extension Elomemaker Clubs [C.A.
App. 1844]........................................ 141
GX 192-L etter of April 4, 1977 on Affirma
tive Action Initiatives for 4-H and Extension
Homemaker Clubs [C.A. App. 1845-1846] . 142
GX 193— Memorandum of April 18, 1978 on
Meeting Structure for Extension Home
makers [C.A. App. 1847-1848] . . . . . . . . . . . 144
GX 194 —Letter of April 25, 1978 on Meeting
Structure for Extension Homemakers [C.A.
App. 1849]......... 146
GX 195— Memorandum of September 4, 1978
on Membership Drive for Extension
Homemakers [C.A. App. 1850].................. 147
GX 198 —Letter of November 14, 1979 on
Pending Litigation [C.A. App. 1856].......... 149
GX 199 —Letter of November 15, 1979 on Im
plementation of “All Reasonable Efforts” in
Extension Programs [C.A. App. 1857] . . . . 150
GX 200 (excerpts) —Strengthening 4-H Pro
grams Through Affirmative Action [C.A.
App. 1859, 1883-1886, 1893]....................... 151
GX 201 — Memorandum of February 29, 1980
on Implementation of “All Reasonable Ef
forts” in Extension Program [C.A. App.
1904] .................................... 157
GX 214 —Letter of July 6, 1973 on Profes
sional Salaries in 1971-1972 [C.A. App.
1610] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
IV
Defendants’Exhibits: Page
DX 78 (excerpt) —Memorandum of Under
standing Between the N.C. Agricultural Ex
tension Service and the Board of County
Commissioners [C.A. App. 1683-1685] . . . . 161
DX 196 —County Chairman Salaries for 1971,
1976 & 1981, and 1971-72 Percent of County
Contribution..................... 165
DX 201—December 1976 Salary Summary
[C.A. App. 2227]...................................... . 168
DX 202 —February 1979 Salary Summary
[C.A. App. 2228] ....................................... ' 169
DX 203 —November 1979 Salary Summary
[C.A. App. 2229]......................................... 170
DX 204 —April 1980 Salary Summary [C.A.
App. 2230].................................................... 171
DX 205 —April 1981 Salary Summary [C.A.
App. 2231] . . . . ............................................. 172
DX 219 —Trends in the North Carolina 4-H
Program 1971-1980 [C.A. App. 2242]........ 173
DX 221 — Percent of Potential Youth Reached
With 4-H Programs [C.A. App. 2243] . . . . . 175
DX 222 —Number of People Served by Exten
sion 4-H Staff [C.A. App. 2244].................. 176
DX 227 —4-H Volunteers and Membership
[C.A. App. 2248]......................................... 177
DX 228 —Single Racial Clubs in Mixed Com
munities [C.A. App. 2249]......................... 178
DX 255 —Salary Data for Employees Not In
cluded in 1975 Regressions [C.A. App.
2310-2311] ..................................................... 179
DX 258 —Non-Extension Homemakers Au
diences [C.A. App. 2323]............... 180
Order Granting Certiorari in No. 85-93 ................. 181
Order Granting Certiorari in No. 85-428 ............... 182
1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 82-1873
P.E. Bazemore, e t a l ., plaintiffs-appellants,
V.
W illiam C. F riday, et a l„ defendants-appellees
APPEAL FROM THE EASTERN DISTRICT
OF NOR TH CAROLINA A T RALEIGH
DATE FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS
10/05/82 Case docketed. Awaiting ROA. tcb.
10/08/82 ORDER cons, cases 82-1873 and 82-1881 for
briefing and oral argument, filed, tcb
10/14/82 DISCLOSURE STMNT, Es, N, filed, tcb
10/14/82 DISCLOSURE STMNT, Es, N, filed, tcb
(case 82-1881)
10/19/82 DISCLOSURE STMNT, As, N, filed, tcb
10/21/82 DISCLOSURE STMNT, As, N, filed, tcb
10/21/82 DISCLOSURE STMNT, As, N, (82-1881),
filed, tcb
10/26/82 ORDER cons, case 82-1927 with 82-1873(L)
and 82-1881 for briefing and oral argument,
filed, tcb
11/01/82 DISCLOSURE STMNT, Es (82-1927), N,
filed, tcb
11/02/82 DISCLOSURE STMNT, Es (82-1927), N,
filed, tcb
11/05/82 MOTION (K-53) of As for leave to file
separate briefs and lead counsel, filed
(SARrjeh)
RESPONSE/Es to motion K-53, filed.
(SARifls)
11/15/82
2
11/23/82
11/30/82
12/6/82
12/10/82
12/13/82
12/16/82
12/21/82
12/22/82
12/28/82
12/23/82
ORDER granting motion of As for leave to
file separate brfs. and lead counsel, and es
tablishing brf. schedule: As due: 1/03/83,
filed. (SAR:fls)
ORDER cons, case 82-2065 with 82-1873(L),
82-1881 and 82-1927 for briefing and oral
argument, filed. Briefing order of 11/23/82
to be adhered to. tcb.
MOTION (L-65) of USA for leave to defer
filing the appendix pursuant to Rule 30(c),
FRAP, filed (CRL:jeh) MOTION DENIED
RESPONSE of Es to motion L-65, filed
(CRL:jeh)
MOTION (L-66) of As-P. E. Bazemore, et al,
for extension of time to file brf, filed
(CRL:jeh) MOTION DENIED
MOTION (L-113) of government for exten
sion of time to file brf., filed. MOTION
DENIED. (CRL:fls)
MOTION (L-145) of A, USA, for reconsidera
tion of denial of procedural motions, filed.
(CRL:fls)
RESPONSE/Es to motion L-145, filed.
(CRL:fls)
ORDER granting motion for reconsideration
(L-145) of denial of procedural motions and
granting extension of time to file As’ brfs.
and appx. to 1/17/83, filed. (CRL:fls) Copy
to Thigpen; Reibman; Craige-Reynolds-
Barnett-Marblestone; Manning-Manning;
Rich., Greenberg-Schnapper. (Mo. re de
ferred appx. denied —phn)
MOTION (L-193) of private plaintiffs-As
for reconsideration of denial of procedural
question, filed. (CRL:fls) (See order L-145)
3
12/23/82
12/23/82
01/03/83
01/20/83
1/21/83
1/26/83
1/31/83
2/22/83
3/7/83
3/16/83
12/19/84
DISCLOSURE STMNT, Es, (82-2065), N,
filed 12/06/82. tcb
DISCLOSURE STMNT, Es, (82-2065), N,
filed 12/07/82. tcb
DESIGNATION-Es, parts to be included in
joint appendix, filed, tcb
MOTION of Ps-As P. E. Bazemore for leave
to file brief in excess of 50 pages (A-152),
filed (PLM:bel)
Supplemental motion of As (A-152), filed
(PLM:jeh)
ORDER granting motion of As to file brief in
excess of 50 pages, not to exceed 65 pages,
filed (PLM:jeh) Copy to Reibman; Man
ning; Rich; Craige-Reynolds-Barnett-Mar-
blestone; Thigpen
MOTION (B-18) of Es’ for extension of time
to file brief and motion for leave to file brief
in excess of 50 pages, filed (PLM:bel) Sub
mitted to HEW*, FDM on 2-14-83.
ORDER granting Es’ motion for extension of
time to March 7, 1983 to file brief and for
leave to file brief not in excess of 95 pages,
filed. (PLM:bel) Copy to: Reibman; Man
ning; Rich; Craige-Reynolds-Barnett-Mar-
blestone; Thigpen; Greenberg-Schnapper-
Sherwood;
MOTION (C-90) of As for additional time
within which to file reply brief, filed
(BMM:jeh)
ORDER granting As an additional 7 days to
file reply brief, filed (BMMrjeh) Copy to
Thigpen; Reibman; Craige-Reynolds-
Barnett-Marblestone; Manning-Manning;
Rich; Greenberg-Schnapper-Sherwood
E’s bill of costs, filed, dhp
4
12/26/84
12/26/84
1/3/85
1/2/85
1/7/85
2/4/85
2/6/85
2/14/85
4/15/85
4/22/85
A’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for
rehearing en banc filed. Transmission of
petition for rehearing held pending decision
of US motion to extend time to file rehear
ing also, dhb
MOTION of United States (L-160) for ext. of
time to 1/7/85 to file pet. for rehearing and
suggestion for reh. in banc, filed, jd
ORDER granting motion L-160. (BMM:jd)
Copy to counsel.
PETITION FOR REHEARING (A-13) and
suggestion for rehearing in banc of As, filed
(DHB:jm)
Petitions filed 12/26/84 and 1/2/85 trans
mitted to HEW, JDP, Judge Kellam w/copy
to all circuit judges (DHB:jm)
MOTION of Es (B-13) for an ext. of time to
2/14/85 to file answer to pet. for rehearing,
filed, jd
ORDER granting motion B-13. (BMM:jd)
Copy to counsel.
RESPONSE (A-13 & L-161) of Es to both pe
titions for rehearing and suggestions for
rehearing in banc, filed (DB:cw) Trans
mitted to HEW, JDP, RBK on 2-15-85.
ORDER denying pet. for reh. and sug. for
reh. in banc in these appeals, filed
(BMMrnac) Copy to counsel on 4/16/85.
Bill of costs taxed. Copies to Thigpen, Reib-
man, Rich, Manning/Manning, Marble-
stone, et ah, Greenberg, et al. lgs
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 2978 C ivil
R aleigh D ivision
P.E. Bazemore, et a l ., plaintiffs
V.
W illiam C. F riday, et a l ., defendants
DATE NR PROCEEDINGS
11/18/71 1 Filed & Ent. PETITION FOR
JUDGMENT DECLARING,
PERMANENT INJUNCTION,
R ESTR A IN IN G D E FE N
DANTS FROM DISCRIM
INATING POLICIES AND
PRACTICES IN EMPLOY
MENT—Allege all defendants
are b i-rac ia l and are
d iscrim inating against all
classes, seek any further relief
and grant costs and attorney fee
to plaintiffs.
Filed & Ent. COST BOND-
$200.00 cost bond, Surety, US
Fidelity Co.
Issued Summons, Original and 12
copies to USM for service, w/12
copies petition.
6
11/29/71
12/2/71
12/7/71 2
1/7/72 3
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN—Served Adm. Lear by
cert, mail 11/22/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TU R N —Served Chancellor
Caldwell Univ. N. C. 11/23/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN-Served Director Hyatt,
Jr. N. C. Agric. 11/22/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN—Served Board Trustees
UNC 11/22/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN—Served Charles L. Bec-
ton 11/22/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN-Served C. Hardin, Sec.
Agric. 11/22/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE-
T U R N -S erved C. Amick,
Alamance CC. 11/19/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN-Served C. Hardin, Sec.
Agric. by mail 11/29/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN-Served UNC Chapel
Hill 11/19/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN-Served Meckleng CC
11/29/71.
Filed & Ent. US MARSHAL RE
TURN—Served Edgecombe CC
11/26/71.
Filed & Ent. ANSW ER-All State
and County officials designated
in complaint fully answers the
7
1/17/72 4*
2/17/72 5
3/22/72 6
4/7/72 7
8
9
complaint, denies all charges,
ask plaintiff’s recover nothing
and cost of action be taxed
against plaintiffs, w/copy and
cert, service.
Filed & ent. ORDER that defts.
are allowed until & including
2/22/72 within which to file
answer or other pleading in ac
tion. (DUPREE, J.) (Civ.
O. B.#23,P.7253) 1 cy to U.S.A.
Filed & ent. ORDER allowing
defts. to & including 3/23/72
within which to file answer or
other pleading in action.
(DUPREE, J.) (Civ.O.B.#23,
P . 7331) 2 CC to U.S.A.
Filed & ent. CONSENT ORDER
allowing defts. to & including
Apr. 7, 1972 within which to file
answer or other pleading.
(DUPREE, J.) (Civ.O.B.#23,
P.7409)
Filed & ent. MOTION TO DIS
MISS FEDERAL DEFEN
DANTS AND TO AMEND
COMPLAINT w/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. MOTION TO INTER
VENE AS PLAINTIFF by
U.S.A. 4 cc to U.S.A.
Filed & ent. MEMORANDUM OF
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO INTERVENE
w/Cert. of Ser. 4 cc to U.S.A.
8
10
11
12
4/21/72 13
Filed & ent. ORDER that U.S.A.
is allowed to file a Complaint in
Intervention. (DUPREE, J.)
(Civ.O.B.#24, P.7463) 4 cc to
U.S.A.
Filed & ent. COMPLAINT IN IN
TERVENTION by U.S.A. pray
ing for order enjoining defts.
from failing to provide services
to minorities equal to those they
provide white persons; main
taining racially segregated 4-H
clubs & extension homemaker
clubs; providing services to 4-H
clubs, extension homemaker
clubs, farmers & other persons
on racially segregated basis;
from discriminating in favor of
white persons & against
minorities in hiring & promotion
& in terms & conditions of
employment in extension service
jobs & for costs & disbursements
of action.
Filed & ent. CERTIFICATE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES
Filed & ent. THIRD-PARTY
COMPLAINT by William C.
Friday, Pres, of Consolidated
Univ. of N.C., et al.
Issued Summons w/Third-Party
Complaint to U.S. Marshal for
service: Orig. & 8 cc to U.S.M.
9
4/28/72 14
15
2/7/72 4-A
4/28/72
16
6/12/72 17
Filed & ent. ORIGINAL AN
SWER TO COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION by defts.,
being all those State & County
officials designated in Com
plaint in Intervention, answering
Complaint of plff-intervenor,
U.S. A.-praying that plff,-
interv., U.S.A., have & recover
nothing of defts. & that action
be dismissed & costs taxed
against plff.-interv. w/Cert. of
Ser.
Filed & ent. AMENDMENT
TO THIRD-PARTY COM
PLAINT, w/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. INTERROGA
TORIES TO DEFTS. PRO
POUNDED BY PLFF. w/CS
Fil. & ent. U. S. MARSHAL’S RE
TURN on 3rd-Party Complaint:
Earl L. Butz, Sect, of Agri.
served 4/24/72 by cert, mail
#384 to Washington, D. C. 5 cc
to U.S. Atty
Filed & ent. U. S. MARSHAL’S
RETURN On 3rd-party com
plaint: Gene M. Lear, Associate
Admr., Agric. Ext. Serv., served
4/24/72 by Cert.Mail #383 to
Washington, D.C. Asst. U.S.
Atty., John R. Whitty, Raleigh,
NC also served.
Filed & ent. REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCU
MENTS filed by U.S., Plff-
interv. w/Cert. of Ser.
10
6/22/72 18
19
6/30/72 20
7/12/72 21
22
7/17/72 23
Filed & Ent. THIRD PARTY DE
FENDANTS MOTION TO
STRIKE OR IN THE ALTER
NATIVE DISMISS THIRD
PARTY COMPLAINT w/copy
and cert service.
Filed & Ent. MEMORANDUM
OF THIRD PARTY DEFEN
DANTS IN SUPPORT OF MO
TION TO STRIKE OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE TO DISMISS
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
w/copy and cert, service.
Filed & ent. DEFENDANT
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSE TO REQUEST
FOR PR O D U C TIO N OF
DOCUMENTS w/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. DEFT. THIRD
PARTY PLFFS’. RESPONSE
TO MOTION TO STRIKE OR
DISMISS TH IRD -PA RTY
COMPLAINT, w/certificate of
service. 2 copies.
Filed & ent. MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS’
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
STRIKE OR DISMISS THIRD-
PARTY COM PLAINT. 2
copies.
Filed & ent. MOTION FOR
ORDER REQUIRING IN
SPE C TIO N OF D E FE N
DANTS RECORDS. 2 copies,
(filed by plff.-intevenor.)
11
24
7/18/72 25
7/21/72 26
7/21/72 27
Filed & ent. MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
ORDER REQUIRING IN
SPE C TIO N OF D E FE N
DANTS RECORDS, filed by
Plff.-Intervenor. 2 copies.
Filed & ent. ORDER REQUIR
ING INSPECTION OF REC
ORDS-deft. third-party plffs.
permit plff-intervenor inspect
and copy Items 1(0 and 2(c) in
plff-intervenor’s Request for
Production of Documents
previously filed herein; Clerk to
service copies of this Order upon
counsel. DUPREE, J. Civil OB
24, P. 7772.
Filed & ent. ORDER that Earl L.
Butz, Sect, of Agri., & Gene M.
Lear, Asso. Admr. of Federal
Extension Ser., in indiv. & of
ficial capacities, are realigned as
plff-intervenors. All claims & re
quests for relief set forth in 3rd-
party Complaint are preserved
as defenses and/or counter
claims. (DUPREE, J.) (Civ.
O. B.#24,P.7787) 2 CC & 4 cys.
to U.S.A.
Filed & ent. ORDER by consent
that time within which discov
ery may be completed is ex
tended to & including 1/10/73.
(DUPREE, J.)(Civ.O.B.#24,
P. 7788) 2 CC & 4cys to U.S.A.
12
9/7/72 28
9/25/72 29
9/29/72
30
10/18/72 31
32
11/17/72 33
11/20/72 34
Filed & ent. INTERROGA
TORIES TO PLAINTIFFS pro
pounded by defts. (State Depts.)
w/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. INTERROGA
TORIES TO DEFENDANTS
BY PLAINTIFF-INTERVEN-
ORS
Filed & ent. CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE as to foregoing Inter
rogatories to Defendants by
Plff.-Intervenors
Filed & ent. PLAINTIFF-INTER-
VENORS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF COM
PUTER MATERIALS w/Cert.
of Service
Filed & ent. DEFENDANTS’
ANSWERS TO INTERROGA
TORIES OF PLAINTIFF-
INTERVENORS W/Cert. of
Ser.
Fil. & ent. DEFENDANTS’ RE
QUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOCUM ENTS AND
THINGS w/Cert. of Ser.
Fil. & ent. DEFENDANTS’ RE
QUEST FOR ADMISSION
UNDER RULE 36 w/Cert. of
Ser.
Filed & ent. RESPONSE TO DE
FENDANTS1 REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCU
M ENTS AND TH IN G S
w/Cert. of Ser., Attachments &
Exhibits
13
11/27/72 35
36
11/30/72
12/4/72 37
12/20/72 38
12/20/72
Fil. & ent. INTERROGATORIES
TO D EFEN D A N TS BY
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS
w/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCU
MENTS w/Cert. of Ser. (Filed
by plff.-intervenor)
Filed & ent. NOTICE OF
TAKING DEPOSITIONS, by
U.S.A., et al —plff-intervenors,
of the following persons: Dr.
George Hyatt, Jr., 12/11/72;
Dr. C. D. Black, 12/12/72; Dr.
Eloise Cofer 12/12/72- a t Ricks
Hall, N.C.State Univ., Raleigh,
NC & Dr. R.E. Jones, 12/12/72
at Coltrane Hall, A&T State
Univ., Greensboro, NC.w/Cert.
of Ser.
Filed & ent. DEFENDANTS’
IN TER RO G A TO R IES TO
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS
w/Attachments
Filed & ent. PLAINTIFFS’ AN
SWER AND RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS REQUEST
FOR ADMISSION UNDER
RULE 36/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. MOTION FOR EX
TENSION OF TIME TO RE
SPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS
UNDER RULE 36 of THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE w/Cert. of Ser.
14
39 Filed & ent. ORDER extending
time for U.S.A. to answer
defendants’ motion to & in
cluding 1/4/73. (DUPREE, J.)
(Civ.O.B.#25,P.8140) 6 CC to
U.S.A.
12/26/72 40 Filed & ent. REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCU
MENTS from State defts. by
U.S. Plff.-Intervenor w/Cert. of
Ser.
Filed & ent. NOTICE OF
TAKING DEPOSITIONS by
U.S., et al., Plff.-Intervs., of
following persons: 10:00 A.M.,
1/3/73: Dr. George Hyatt, Jr.;
10:00 A.M., 1/4/73 Mrs. Ada
Dalla Pozza, 2:00 p.m. Mrs.
Minnie M. Brown; 9:00 A.M.,
1/5/73 Dr. George Capel, J.E.
Foil; 10:00 a.m„ 1/8/73 R.
Craig Wilburn; 1:30 p.m. T.C.
Blalock; 9:30 a.m., 1/9/73 Paul
Dew; 2:00 p.m., W.G. Andrews;
9:30 a.m., 1/10/73 J.C. Jones,
2:00 p.m. Grover Dobbins; &
9:30 a.m., 1/11/73 John E.
Piland, w/Cert. of Ser.
1/2/73 41 Filed & ent. MOTION FOR EX
TENSION OF TIME TO RE
SPOND TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR IN T E R
ROGATORIES UNDER RUTE
33 OF THE FEDERAL RULES
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
w/Cert. of Ser. 4 CC to U.S.A.
15
42
1/3/73
1/4/73 43
1/9/73
1/15/73 44
1/18/73
1/23/73 45
2/14/73
Filed & ent. ORDER granting mo
tion that U.S.A. be allowed ex
tension of time to & including
1/23/73 in which to answer
defendant’s interrogatories.
(DUPREE, J.) (Civ,O.B.#25,
P.8191) 4 CC to USA (will serve
order)
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
ROBERT E. JONES (Unopened
by Clk.)
Filed & ent. PLAINTIFF-IN-
TERVENORS’ RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST
FOR ADMISSION UNDER
RULE 36 w/Attachment & Cert,
of Ser.
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
DR. ELOISE COFER (Un
opened by the Clk.)
Filed & ent. ORDER by consent
that discovery time be extended
to & including 3 /23 /73 .
(DUPREE, J.) (Civ.O.B.#25,
P.8230) 3 CC to U.S.A. who will
serve copies.
Fil. & ent. DEPOSITION OF DR.
CHESTER BLACK (Unopened
by Clk.)
Fil. & ent. ANSWERS TO DE
FENDANTS’ INTERROGA
TORIES TO PLAINTIFF IN-
TERVENORS w/Cert. of ser.
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
GROVER C. DOBBINS.
(Unopened by Clk.)
16
2/23/73
3/1/73
3/5/73
3/16/73
3/21/73 46
3/30/73 47
4/9/73
4/19/73
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
DR. GEORGE HYATT. (Un
opened by Clk.)
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
DR. THOMAS C. BLALOCK
(Unopened by Clk.)
Fil. DEPOSITION OF J. E. FOIL
(Unopened by Clk) (Ent.
3/6/73) crs
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
JOHN PILAND (unopened by
Clk.)
Fil. & ent. DEPOSITION OF
MINNIE BROWN (unopened
by Clk.)
Fil. & ent. DEPOSITION OF DR.
GEORGE CAPEL (unopened
by Clk.)
Fil. & ent. INTERROGATORIES
TO D EFEN D A N TS BY
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS
w/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. PLAINTIFFS AN
SWERS TO INTERROGA
TORIES w/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
RONALD C. WILBURN (Un
opened by Clk.)
Fil. & ent. DEPOSITION OF
ADA DALLA POZZA (Un
opened by Clk.)
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
QUENTIN SWANSON (Un
opened by Clk.)
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
PAUL DEW (Unopened by
Clk.)
17
4/20/73 48
5/7/73
5/16/73
5/18/73 49
12/11/73
12/26/73 50
Fil. & ent. DEFENDANTS’ AN
SWERS TO PLAINTIFFS IN-
TERVENORS INTERROGA
TORIES Statement of service in
transmittal letter. (Exhibits at
tached to answers)
Fil. & ent. DEPOSITION OF DR.
W. G. ANDREWS (unopened
by Clk.)
Filed & ent. DEPOSITION OF
J. C. JONES (Unopened by
Clk.)
Fil. & ent. DEFENDANT’S AN
SWERS TO PLA IN TIFF-
INTERVENORS MARCH 20,
1973, INTERROGATORIES
w/Exhibits
Set for Pre-trial and hearing on
3rd-party defts. Motion to
Strike or in alternative Dismiss
3rd-party Complaint — 1/9/74 at
11:00 a.m. smf
Filed & ent. MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW
AND FOR ORDER SUBSTI
TUTING OTHER COUNSEL
FOR PLA IN TIFFS: A tty
Chambers has been appointed as
a member of the Board of
Governors of the U. of N.C.
Charles Becton is also a member
of said firm —Jerry Paul and
James Rowan, 202 Rigsabee
Ave., Durham, N.C. have been
retained by the plf'ts. Cert, of
Ser. B.H. Shapiro, U.S. Dept.
18
of Justice, T. McNamara, U.S.
Atty. EDNC., Raleigh, North
Carolina, A.A. Vanore, Jr.
Deputy Atty. General. P.O. Box
629, Raleigh, North Carolina
mailed on 12/21/73. gw
1/3/74 51 Filed & ent. ORDER-firm of
Chambers, Stein, Ferguson &
Lanning, J. LeVonne Cham
bers, Esq., Charles Becton, Esq,
are allowed to withdraw as
counsel in this case. Motion
hearing scheduled for 1/9/74 is
cont’d until 2:00 p.m. on Friday,
February 1, 1974, Courtroom
#1, 7th Floor, Federal Building,
R aleigh , N orth C aro lina
(DUPREE, J) CivOB#28P 9339
cc: a ttys. Pau l, Becton,
Chambers, Draw, Shapiro &
Rich ag
1/18/74 52 Filed & ent. NOTICE OF AP
PEARANCE by Jerome Paul
and Sylvia Drew on behalf of
plffs. in this action. w/Cert. of
Ser. jwt
1/25/74 53 Filed & ent. ORDER that matter
scheduled to be heard in this
case on 2/1/74 is now moot &
the scheduled hearing is
therefore continued. (DUPREE,
J.)(Civ.O.B.#28, P.9427) CC to
counsel jwt
19
4/1/74
4/5/74 54
55
4/10/74
11/13/74
11/27/74 56
Scheduled for pre-trial conference
at Raleigh, Thurs., 4/25/74 at
12:30 P.M. Cy. to counsel,
Judges Butler & Dupree & Ct.
Rptr. jwt
Filed & ent. MOTION TO CON
TINUE PRETRIAL CON
FERENCE by all parties.
Filed & ent. ORDER that pre-trial
conf. scheduled for 4/25/74 is
continued for at least 60 days.
(DUPREE, J.) (Civ.O.B.#29,
P.9678) Atty. Rich serving
copies jwt
Filed & ent. CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE for Motion and
Order filed on 4/5/74, service
4/8/74 by Atty. Rich, gw
Calendared for pre-trial conf. at
Raleigh, Fri., 12/13/74 at 9:30
A.M. Cy. to Judges Butler &
D upree, C ounsel & Ct.
Rptr. jwt
Filed & ent. ORDER that pre-trial
conf. scheduled for 12/13/74 is
continued & will now be held at
11:00 a.m., Fri., 1/3/75 in
Judge’s Chambers, 716 Fed.
Bldg., Raleigh, N.C. (DU
PREE, J.) (C iv.O .B .#3 1,
P.264) Cys. to counsel by
Judge’s office jwt
20
1/3/75 57
57-a
58
1/2/75 59
1/3/75 60
61
62
Filed & ent. MOTION TO CER
TIFY AS CLASS ACTION and
MEMORANDUM IN SUP
PORT OF MOTION TO CER
TIFY AS CLASS ACTION
w/Cert. of Ser. & Proposed
Order
Pre-trial conf. at Raleigh
Filed & ent. PLAINTIFF-INTER-
V E N O R S’ M O TIO N TO
DISMISS, OR IN ALTER
NATIVE TO STRIKE DEFEN
DANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM
w/Cert. of Ser. & Attachments
& MEMORANDUM
Filed & ent. AFFIDAVIT PUR
SUANT TO RULE 7P of the
RULES OF COURT OF THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA CON
CERNING SANCTIONS FOR
FA ILU R E TO COM PLY
W ITH PR ETR IA L PR O
CEDURES w/cert. of ser.
Filed & ent. PLAINTIFF-INTER-
VENORS’ PROPOSED STIP
ULATION OF FACT
Filed & ent. STIPULATION of
U.S.A. as to exhibits to be of
fered-signed by U.S. atty.
only.
Filed & ent. MEMORANDUM OF
PRETRIAL COMPLIANCE by
U.S.A. w/Attachments
21
63
1/23/75 64
65
1/31/75 66
2/7/75 67
Fil. & ent. ORDER ON INITIAL
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE-
defts. to provide opposing
counsel w/list of all exhibits pro
posed to be offered on or before
1/31/75; case to be tried to court
w/out a jury & est. trial time is
from 6 to 8 wks.; defts. have 20
days from this date to respond
to motion to strike counterclaim
as well as response to motion to
have case certified as class ac
tion; final pre-trial conf. to be
held in Chambers at Raleigh on
Fri. 5/30/75 at 11:00 a.m. at
which time trial time will be
assigned. (DUPREE, J.) (Civ.
O.B.#32,P.104) Cy. to counsel
by Judge’s office jwt
Filed & ent. DEFENDANTS’ RE
SPONSE TO PLAINTIFF-IN-
TERVENORS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS, OR IN THE AL
TERNATIVE TO STRIKE DE
FE N D A N T S’ C O U N T ER
CLAIM w/Cert. of Ser. Cy. to
J. Dupree
Filed & ent. BRIEF IN OPPOSI
TION TO PLAINTIFF-INTER-
VENORS’ MOTION TO CER
TIFY AS A CLASS ACTION
w/Cert. of Ser. Cy. to J. Dupree
Received DEFENDANTS’ EX
HIBIT LIST and WITNESS
LIST jt
Fil. & ent. ORDER that time
within which plff.-intervenor,
U.S.A., may file a Motion for
22
2/14/75 68
2/19/75 69
2/28/75 70
71
3/4/75 72
Leave to Amend Complaint in
Intervention is extended to & in
cluding 3/3/75. (DUPREE, J.)
(Civ.O.B.#32,P.202) 2 CC & 3
cys. to U.S.A. jwt
Filed & ent. REPLY BRIEF IN
SU PPO R T OF U N ITED
STATES’ MOTION TO CER
TIFY AS A CLASS ACTION
w/Exhibit A & Cert, of
Ser. jwt
Filed & ent. AFFIDAVIT IN RE
SPONSE TO AFFIDAVIT
FILED BY MARY A. PLAN-
TY, DATED DECEMBER 31,
1974, PURSUANT TO RULE
7P OF THE RULES OF
COURT OF THE U .S .
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA CON
C ER N IN G SA N CTIO N S.
W/Cert. of Ser. jwt
Filed & ent. MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT IN IN
TERVENTION w/Proposed
Amended Complaint in In
tervention
Fil. & ent. MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AN AMEND
ED COMPLAINT IN INTER
VENTION w/Cert. of Ser.
Filed & ent. MEMORANDUM OF
AUTHORITIES ON THE
23
3/6/75 73
3/12/75 74
75
3/20/75 76
3/28/75
5/12/75 77
ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
BAR OF BACK WAGES filed
by deft. w/Cert. of Ser.
Fil. w/Judge Dupree: MEMO
RANDUM OF AUTHORITIES
ON WHETHER THE ELEV
ENTH AMENDMENT BARS
BACK PAY IN THIS CASE
filed by U.S.A. w/Cert. of Ser.
Fil. & ent. MOTION TO CER
TIFY AS CLASS ACTION pur
suant to R.23(c)(1), F.R.Civ.P.
filed by plffs.
Filed & ent. PLAINTIFF’S RE
SPONSE TO PLAINTIFF-IN-
TERVENORS’ MOTION TO
AM END C O M PLA IN T
w/Cert. of Ser. jwt
Filed & ent. BRIEF IN OPPOSI
TION TO P L A IN T IF F -
INTERVENOR’S MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT IN IN
TERVENTION w/Cert. of Ser.
(6 cys. to Atty. Manning. & cy.
to J.Dupree by Mr. Man
ning) jwt
Filed & ent. REPLY TO PLAIN
TIFFS’ MOTION TO CERTIFY
AS CLASS ACTION w/Cert. of
Ser. jwt
Calendared for hearing on all
pending motions at Raleigh,
Wed., 6/11/75 at 10:30 a.m. (Cy
to counsel, Judges Butler &
Dupree & Ct.Rptr.) jwt
24
6/16/75 78
1/23/76 79
3/15/76
9/13/76 80
10/25/78 81
10/25/78 82
Fil. & ent. SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM CONCERN
ING PENDING MOTIONS
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION AND TO
CERTIFY CASE AS A CLASS
ACTION w/Cert. of Ser. jwt
NOTICE OF HEARING ON
PENDING MOTIONS at 11:00
a.m., Fri., 2/13/76, Ctrm. #1,
7th Floor, Fed, Bldg., 310 New
Bern Ave., Raleigh, N.C.
(DUPREE, J.) Cy. to counsel,
Clk. & Ct. Rptr. jwt
Filed & ent. TRANSCRIPT OF
HEARING ON PENDING
MOTIONS before Judge F. T.
Dupree, Jr. Ctrm. #1, Fed.
Bldg., Raleigh, N .C ., on
2/13/76 at 11:00 a.m. jwt
Filed & ent. SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM OF THE
U N ITED STATES w /a t-
tachments & Cert, of Ser. (Cy.
furnished Judge by US) jwt
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE
COUNSEL —James V. Rowan,
atty. for pltfs. moves for court
order permitting substitution of
Cressie Thigpen in his place,
w/cs. lc: Judge Dupree
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE-
by Cressie H. Thigpen, Jr. and
Edward D. Reibman. w/cs lc:
Judge Dupree.
25
11/16/78 83
11/17/78
12/13/78 85
4/2/79
6/4/79 86
ORDER —James V. Rowan is
allowed to withdraw as counsel
for pltfs. and Cressie Thigpen,
E sq ., R aleigh , N .C . is
substituted as counsel in his
stead. (Dupree, J) Civ. OB#47,
P. 297. lc: counsel of record,
(ent. 11/16/78)
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL
MEMORANDUM IN SUP
PORT OF MOTION TO
AMEND COMP in intervention
w/attachments & w/cs.
PRE-TRIAL AND MOTION
HEARING: (J. Dupree): 10:00
A.M. on Friday, December 29,
1978 at Courtroom No. 1, 7th
FI. 310 New Bern Ave., Raleigh,
N.C. Cy to: Mr. Edward D.
Reibman, Mr. Cressie H.
Thigpen, Jr., Mr. Jerry E.
Keith, Mr. Howard E. Manning
and Mr. Millard R. Rich,
Jr. trj
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
ON MOTIONS AND PRE
TRIAL HEARING before Hon.
Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.,
Raleigh, N.C., Fri., 12/29/78 at
10:00 a.m. (Pgs. 1-70 —Ervin B.
Bush, Ct. Rptr.)
MOTION TO RE-OPEN DIS
COVERY by plff. Intervenor,
U.S.A. w/cs jwt
26
6/20/79 87
6/22/79 88
89(2a)
10/9/79 90
10/19/79 91
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S
MOTION TO RE-OPEN DIS
COVERY. w/cs jwt
MOTION TO RE-OPEN DIS-
COVERY —plffs. join plff.-
intervenor’s Motion to Re-Open
Discovery
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO RE-OPEN
DISCOVERY, w/cs jwt
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND ORDER denying pltfs’.
motion to dismiss the counter
claim; and allowing parties to &
inch 2/1/80 to complete discov
ery; also that class certification
of the pltf. employee class is
denied; pltf’s. motion to certify
the deft, class is denied for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction;
U.S. motion to amend interven
tion complaint is allowed insofar
as it alleges racial discrimination
but denies it insofar as it alleges
sexual discrimination. (J.DU
PREE) (Civ.O.B.#54,P.41) cc to
counsel, pgn
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT
OF TIME TO ANSWER OR
OTHERWISE PLEAD TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT.
w/cs
27
10/22/79 92
11/1/79 93
94
11/5/79 95
96
11/6/79 97
11/19/79 98
ORDER extending time w/n
which defts. may answer or
otherwise plead to Amended
Complaint in Intervention to &
including 11/1/79. (DUPREE,
J.) (Civ.O.B.#54,P.155) CC to
counsel jwt
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO
AMENDED COMPLAINT IN
INTERVENTION -w /cs. sbd
REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DE
FAULT AGAINST PLAIN
TIFF-INTER VENORS-w/cs.
sbd
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
MEMORANDUM OF DECI
SION AND ORDER DATED,
FILED AND ENTERED ON
OCTOBER 9, 1979 —w/cs.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO RECONSIDER MEMO
RANDUM OF DECISION
AND ORDER DATED, FILED
AND ENTERED ON OC
TOBER 9, 1979-w/cs sbd
ENTRY OF DEFAULT-Entered
agst. the plff-intervenors as pro
vided by R. 55(a), F.R.Civ.P.
(Clk. J. Rich Leonard) Civ.OB
#54,p.276. cc to counsel, sd
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
RECONSIDER MEMORAN
DUM OF DECISION AND
28
99
11/16/79 100
101 (2a)
11/19/79 102
12/7/79 103
12/10/79 104(2b)
12/14/79 105(2b)
106
1/4/80 107(2b)
ORDER DATED, FILED AND
ENTERED ON OCTOBER 9,
1979 w/cs. sd
AMENDMENT TO ANSWER
TO AMENDED COMPLAINT
IN INTERVENTION -w /cs .
MOTION TO SET ASIDE DE-
FA U LT-Pur. to R. 55(c) &
60(b), F.R .C .P., plff-interv.
move to set aside default entered
on 11/6/79. w/cs. sd
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE
DEFAULT — by plff-interv. sd
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
PLFF-INTERVS’ MOTION TO
SET ASIDE DEFAULT-w/cs.
PLAINTIFF INTERVENORS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE OUT OF TIME —w/Pro-
posed Answer & Memorandum,
w/cs. sd
PLAIN TIFFS’ INTERROGA
T O R IE S — RE: M ACHINE
READABLE DATA w/cs jwt
DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGA
TORIES TO PLAINTIFFS-
FIRST S E T -
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE OUT OF TIM E-w /cs.
s d
PLAINTIFFS’ AND PLAINTIFF-
IN T E R V E N O R ’S JO IN T
IN TER R O G A TO R IES TO
DEFTS. w/cs. pg
29
1/8/80 108
109(2b)
1/10/80 110(2)
111 (2a)
1/11/80 112
113
1/14/80 114(2b)
1/23/80 115
MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE
ORDER PUR. TO R.26(c) of
F.R.Civ.P. —by defts.
DEFTS’ ANSWERS TO PLFFS’
INTERROGATORIES RE:
M A CH IN E READABLE
DATE —w/cs.
MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME
FOR DISCOVERY-by USA,
to 6/2/80.
MEMORANDUM OF PLFF-
INTERV. U.S. IN SUPPORT
OF ITS M O TIO N TO
ENLARGE THE TIME FOR
DISCOVERY w/cs.
ORDER — on motion by defts., de
positions noticed for 1/14/80 be
postponed until plffs & plff-
interv. have responded to defts’
motion. (HOWELL, U.S.M.)cc
to counsel. (Ent. 1/11/80)
JOINT NOTICE OF TAKING
DEPOSITIONS-Plffs. & Plff-
Interv. will jointly take deposi
tions of listed people, w/cs. sd
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME WITHIN WHICH TO
ANSW ER IN T E R R O G A
TORIES— Plffs. request an ad
ditional 30 days w/in which to
answer, w/cs. sd
(Red Jacket) Plaintiffs’ AN
SWERS TO INTERROGA
TORIES -F IR S T SET: for
following Plffs: Richard M. Ed
wards, Chester L. Bright, Pen-
nie P. Battle, W.E. Wright,
Booker T. McNeill, Percy W.
30
1/25/80
1/28/80
Williams, Clifton M. Grimes,
Haywood E. Harrell, James E.
Wright, Minnie B. Taylor,
Johnnie Jones, III, Mary C.
Martin, Chester Stocks, W.N.
Payton, Jr., Fletcher Barber,
w/cs
116(2a) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF PLFFS’ MOTION TO
RECONSIDER MEMORAN
DUM OF DECISION AND
ORDER DATED, FILED AND
ENTERED ON October 9,
1979. w/cs.
117 (Red Jacket) PLAINTIFFS’ AN
SWERS TO INTERROGA
TORIES — FIRST S E T -F o r
following Plffs: George W.
Koonce, Natalie S. Wimberly,
Luther D. Baldwin, Earl G.
Swann, Plese Corbett, Martha
B. Thomas, Jeanette B. Sher
rod, Margaret L. Baldwin,
Calvin Hargrove, Jr., Albrey
Lee Jones, P.E. Bazemore.
118 PLFFS’ REPLY IN OPPOSI
TION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR A PROTEC
TIVE ORDER-w/cs.
119 (Red Jacket) PLFFS’ ANSWERS
TO INTERROGATORIES —
FIRST SET for Avant P. Col
eman, Margaret J. Woods,
Henry Revell, Jr., Fred Belfield,
Jr., Victoria B. Bynum, Annie
P. Costen Gilmer, w/cs.
31
1/31/80 120
2/14/80 121 (2b)
2/19/80 122
2/29/80 123
2/29/80 124
3/17/80 125
PLAIN TIFF-INTERVEN ORS’
RESPONSE TO MOTION OF
DEFTS’ FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER —w/cs.
MOTION TO COMPEL AN
SWERS TO DEFTS’ INTER
ROGATORIES DIRECTED
TO PLFFS —w/cs.
MEMORANDUM-Defts. mo
tion for a protective order is
deferred at least until plffs.
have responded to motion to
compel. (HOWELL, U.S.M.
(Civ.OB#56, p . 193) cc to
counsel, sd
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
DEFTS’ MOTION TO COM
PEL ANSWERS TO DEFTS’
INTERRO G A TO RIES D I
RECTED TO PLFFS-w /cs.
cy. to Howell
PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWERS TO
DEFENDANTS’ INTERROG
ATORIES TO PLFF-FIRST
S E T -for
(Red Jacket) Riddick Earl Wilkins,
Leonard C. Cooper, Bertha
Bethel Forte, Alma C. Hobbs,
Hernando F. Palmer, w/cs.
PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWERS TO
DEFTS’ INTERROGATORIES
TO PLFF.-FIRST SE T -for
(Red Jacket) Geraldine H. Ray,
Clifton Parker, Marilyn White
Rich, Esther B. Winston, sd
32
4/1/80 126
11/19/80
11/24/80
12/5/80 127(b)
128(b)
129(b)
130(b)
131(b)
12/19/80 132
PLAINTIFFS ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS-FIRST S E T -for
(Red Jacket) David B. Waymer.
cgh
Scheduled for a motion hearing
at 10:15 a.m. on 12/1/80 before
Magistrate Flowed in Raleigh,
N.C. cgn
Cont’d. to 12/15/80 at 4:15 P.M.
before Howell in Raleigh —
jwt
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWER TO
DEFTS’ INTERROGATORIES
TO PLTFS-FIRST SE T -for
Inez Foster, mk
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
DEFTS’ INTERROGATORIES
TO PLTFS —FIRST S E T -for
Louise Penn Slade, mk
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
DEFTS’ INTERROGATORIES
TO PLFTS-FIRST SE T -for
George E. McDaniel, mk
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
DEFTS’ INTERROGATORIES
TO PLTFS-FIRST SE T -for
Carrie Lindsey Thompson, mk
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
DEFTS’ INTERROGATORIES
TO PLTFS-FIRST SE T -for
Robert Lee Lancaster, mk
PLAIN TIFF-INTERVEN ORS’
RESPO N SE TO A D D I
TIONAL MEMORANDUM IN
33
1/15/81 133(b)
134(b)
135(b)
136(b)
137(b)
138(b)
139(b)
SUPPORT OF M O T IO N FO R
P R O T E C T IV E O RD E R - w/cs.
mvk
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
T IFFS — FIRST S E T - f o r
Ernest C. Short —w/cs, tt
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS — FIRST S E T - f o r
Slayter T. Lloyd —w/cs. tt
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS—FIRST S E T -for Mary
Irene Parham —w/cs. tt
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS-FIRST S E T -for Jo
Ann Fleming Carter —w/cs. tt
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS-FIRST SE T -for Judy
Herring Wallace —w/cs. tt
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS — FIRST S E T - f o r
William C. Stroud —w/cs. tt
PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN TER-
34
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS - FIRST SET - for Leroy
James —w/cs. tt
140(b) PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS-FIRST S E T -fo r I ley
Wiley Murfree —w/cs. tt
141(b) PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
T IFFS — FIRST S E T - f o r
Dorothy M. Elearne —w/cs. tt
142(b) PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS-FIRST S E T -fo r Mary
B. Crawford —w/cs. tt
143(b) PLAINTIFF’S ANSWERS TO
D E FE N D A N T S’ IN T E R
ROGATORIES TO PLAIN
TIFFS - FI RST SET - for Lloyd
L. Peace —w/cs. tt
RECEIVED ON 3/17/81-R E
SPONSE OF ESTHER B.
ROSCOE WINSTON in addi
tion to her Answer to Inter
ro g a to rie s (#125, filed
3/17/80). mk
RECEIVED ON 3 /6 /81 - R E
SPONSE OF ROBERT LAN
CASTER in addition to his
Answer to Interrogatories (#131,
filed 12/5/80). mk
35
5/5/81
6/2/81
6/19/81
RECEIVED ON 3 /6 /81 - R E
SPONSE OF CA RR IE
THOMPSON in addition to her
Answer to Interrogatories (#130,
filed 12/5/80). mk
RECEIVED ON 3 /6 /81 - R E
SPONSE OF HAYWOOD
HARRELL in addition to his
Answer to Interrogatories (#124,
filed 2/29/80). mk
RECEIVED ON 3 /6 /81 - R E
SPON SE OF LEONARD
COOPER in addition to his
Answer to Interrogatories (#124,
filed 2/29/80). mk
Letter from Clerk to counsel of
record asking for a stip. on
discovery. If they cannot agree, a
status conference will be scheduled
for the week of June 1, before
Magistrate McCotter. cgh
144 ORDER —Upon consent of the
parties, the discovery period in
this action will conclude on Oc
tober 30, 1981, w/ a final
pretrial conference and trial to
be scheduled thereafter as the
docket permits. (CIV. O.B. #62,
p. 208) (LEONARD, clerk)-cc
to counsel, mk
ISSUED NOTICE OF HEARING
ON PENDING MOTIONS at
10.00 a.m.. Fri., 7/17/81 in
Raleigh in Ctrm. #1, 7th Floor,
P.O. & Cthse. before Judge
Dupree.
*Entries #127-131 and 133-143 in separate folders
36
6/30/81
7/15/81
7/24/81
*7/15/81
ISSUED NOTICE OF NON
JURY TRIAL Mon., 12/7/81 at
10:00 a.m., Raleigh, NC, Ctrm.
#1, before Judge Dupree, jwt
145(3a) SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORAN
DUM IN SUPPORT OF MO
TIO N TO SET ASIDE
DEFAULT AND MOTION TO
FILE OUT OF TIME, w/cs &
a ttac h m en t (Cy. to J.
Dupree) jwt
146(3a) SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORAN
DUM IN SU PPO RT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
RECONSIDER MEMORAN
DUM OF DECISON AND
ORDER DATED, FILED AND
ENTERED ON 1 0 /9 /7 9 -
concludes that pltfs’ request that
they be certifed as represent
atives of the class consisting of
all black professional employees
oftheNCAES since 11/18/71 be
granted —w/cs and attachments,
tt
147(3a) SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORA-
DUM IN SU PPO RT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
RECONSIDER MEMORAN
DUM OF DECISION AND
ORDER DATED OCTOBER 9,
1979 —pltfs request they be cer
tified as representatives of the
class consisting of all black
employees of the NCAES since
11/18/71 and thereafter —w/at-
tachments. tt
37
7/27/81
7/29/81
7/29/81
148(3a) DEFENDANTS’ MEMORAN
DUM IN RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMEN
TAL MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
RECONSIDER THE DENIAL
OF CLASS ACTION STATUS
BY ORDER OF OCTOBER 9,
1979 — defts. respect, submit
that this action not be certified
as a class action, and that the
Court’s Order of 10/9/79
w/respect to class certification
remain in effect —w/cs. tt
AFFIDAVIT OF HERNANDO
PALMER —to be attached to
Pfit’s Supp. Memo, in Support
of Pltfs’ Motion to Reconsider
Memo, of Decision & Order,
Filed and Entered on 10/9/79
filed 7/24/81 tt
149 ORDER —The Court makes the
following rulings on various
pending motions heard on July
17, 1981: Plft’s motion to recon
sider the Court’s order of Oct. 9,
1981: Pltf’s motion to reconsider
the Court’s order of Oct. 9, 1979
denying the motion for certifica
tion of a pltf & deft, class under
Rule 23 of the F.R.C.P. is
denied for the reasons set forth
in the court’s order of Oct. 9,
1979; the motion of pltf-
intervenors to set aside the
default entered against them on
38
8/12/81
8/24/81
8/27/81
9/10/81
9/21/81
Nov. 6, 1979, is allowed; the
deft’s motion for a protective
order, filed on January 8, 1980,
is denied; deft’s motion to com
pel, filed on Feb. 14, 1980, is
allowed & pltfs are directed to
continue their efforts to com
plete their answers to defts’ in
terrogatories. (CIV. O.B. #63,
p. 10) (DUPREE, J.) — cc to
counsel, mk
D E PO SIT IO N OF DR.
CHESTER D. BLACK-taken
7/7/81 at 10:00 a.m. in Raleigh,
N.C. tt
DEPOSITION OF DR. THOMAS
C. BLALOCK-taken 7/7/81 at
3:30 p.m. in Raleigh, N.C. tt
150 SUGGESTION FOR SUBSTITU
TIO N OF PU BLIC OF-
F IC IA L S — by p ltf .- in te r -
venor —w/cs. tt
151 (3b) ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFFS’
AND PLAINTIFF-1NTER-
VENORS’ JOINT INTER
ROGATORIES TO DEFEN
DANTS— w/cs & attachments
(attachments in separate folder)
152(3b) DEFENDANTS’ INTERR. DI
RECTED TO PLAINTIFF-
INTER VENORS U .S .A .-
w/cs. tt
ISSUED NOTICE OF FINAL
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
before USM McCotter, in
Raleigh, Mon., 11/2/81, USM
Ctrm., 6th Floor, Cthse., 310
39
9/24/81
9/29/81
10/6/81
10/8/81
New Bern Ave., at 10:15 A.M.
jwt
Calendared for Non-jury trial in
Raleigh, Ctrm. #1, before Judge
Dupree, jwt
153(3a) DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SET
OF INTERROGATORIES DI
RECTED TO PLAINTIFF-
INTERVENORS UNITED
STATES OF AM ERICA-
w/cs. tt
Case file to J. Dupree, w/request
for handling of dispositive mo
tion (Request for Substitution of
Public Officials by pltf.-inter-
venor).
154 ORDER-John R. Block as Sec.
of A gricu ltu re is to be
substituted as pltf.-intervenor
herein in place of Earl L. Butz,
one of pltf.-intervenors of
record, & Dr. Mary Nell Green
wood as Deputy Director,
Science & Ed. Administration-
Extension is to be substituted as
pltf-intervenor herein in place of
Gene N. L ear, one of
pltf.-intervenors of record —
(DUPREE, J.) (CIV. O.B. #63,
p. 199) cc counsel tt
155 ORDER RELATING TO DIS
COVERY MATTERS AND
FINAL PRE-TRIAL CON
FERENCE — pltf.-intervenor,
U.S., shall have until 11/2/81 in
which to file & deliver to defts.
& pltf. answers to defts’ interr.;
time in which defts. may engage
40
10/12/81
*9/25/81
in discovery shall be extended
through 11/16/81 provided that
depos will be completed by
11/16/81, defts. will submit any
add. written discovery to
pltf.-interveners by Express
Mail or Fed. Express on or
befo re 1 1 /5 /8 1 , & p ltf-
intervenors will cooperate in
making individuals available for
depos during that period
through 11/16/81; pltf.-inter-
venors will submit answers to
any add. written discovery filed
by defts. by Express Mail or
Fed. Express mailed on or
before 11/19/81 provided such
answers can be obtained through
reasonable efforts; & Final Pre-
Trial Conference will be re
scheduled from 11/2/81 until
11/23/81 at 10:00 a.m. —signed
by counsel-(LEONARD, M.)
(CIV. O.B. #63, p. 201) cc
counsel tt
ISSUED NOTICE RESCHED
ULING FINAL PRE-TRIAL at
Raleigh, Mon., 11/23/81 at
10:00 am before USM Leonard
in USM Ctrm., 6th Floor,
Cthse. jwt
153a(3a) PLAIN TIFFS’ INTERROGA
TORIES TO DEFENDANTS
for the following Plaintiffs:
RICHARD M. EDWARDS,
CHESTER L. BRIGHT, PEN-
NIE P. BATTLE, W. E.
W R IG H T , BOOKER T.
41
M cN EILL, PERCY W.
WILLIAMS, CLIFTON M.
GRIM ES, HAYWOOD E.
HARRELL, JAMES E.
W RIGHT, M INNIE B.
TAYLOR, JOHNNIE JONES
III, MARY C. M ARTIN,
CHESTER STOCKS, W. N.
PAYTON, JR., FLETCHER
BARBER, ALMA C. HOBBS,
LEONARD C. COOPER,
HOOVER ROYALS, JUDY
HERRING W ALLACE,
JOANN F. CARTER, MARY
B. CRAWFORD, GEORGE W.
KOONCE, NATALIE S.
WIMBERLY, LUTHER D.
BALDW IN, EARL G.
SWANN, PLESE CORBETT,
M ARTHA B. THOM AS,
JEANNETE B. SHERROD,
MARGARET L. BALDWIN,
CALVIN HARGROVE, JR.,
ALBREY LEE JONES, P. E.
BAZEMORE, MARGARET J.
VOODS, AVANT P. COLE
MAN, HENRY REVELL, JR.,
FRED BELFIELD, JR., VIC
TORIA B. BYNUM, ANNIE P.
COSTEN GILMER, J. M.
SPAULDING, MARY I.
PARHAM , SLAYTER T.
LLOYD, LEROY JAMES,
RIDDICK E. WILKINS, BER
THA B. FORTE, HERNANDO
PALMER, GERALDINE H.
42
10/14/81
10/20/81
RAY, CLIFTON PARKER,
M A RILY N W. R IC H ,
ESTH ER B. W IN STO N ,
DAVID B. W AYM ER,
ROBERT L. LANCASTER,
INEZ W. FOSTER, GEORGE
e . m c d a n ie l , c a r r ie l .
THOM PSON, LOUISE P.
SLADE, ILEY W. MURFEE,
LLOYD L. PEACE, DORO
THY M. HEARNE, ROOSE-
VELL LAWRENCE, WAR
REN BARNES, ERNEST C.
SHORT & W ILLIAM C.
STROUD-w/cs. tt
156(3a) P L A IN T IF F -IN T E R V E N O R
UNITED STATES’ INTER
ROGATORIES TO DEFEN
DANTS THIRD SET -w /cs . t
157 M O T I O N F O R O R D E R TO
C O M P E L D I S C O V E R Y —
pltf.-intervenor U.S.A. moves
the Court to order defts.’ agent
Z. H arrell, Co. Extension
Chrmn. in Gates Co., N.C. to
respond to questions on oral
depo re his knowledge of events
which culminated in M. Woods’
grievance hearing on 11/16/77;
& to order defts.’ agents, in
course of depos, to respond to
questions re their knowledge of
practices which are alleged to
discrim inate or to have
discriminated on the basis of
race —w/cs. tt
43
10/20/81 158(3b)
10/21/81 159
160(3a)
*10/23/81 161
10/26/81 162
MEMORANDUM IN SU P
PORT OF MOTION FOR
ORDER TO COMPEF DIS-
C O V E R Y -b y p ltf .- in te r -
venor —w/cs. tt
DEFTS’ RESPONSE TO MO
TION TO COMPEL DISCOV
ERY — w/cs & attachments,
cgh
Objections & Answers to Interr.
Submitted by Pltfs. to Defts. by
Letter of Sept. 24, 1981—w/cs &
attachments
MOTION by deft, for an order
prohibiting all further interviews
of employees of deft. NCAES
without the knowledge of defts.;
notification of employees
already interviewed; copies of all
s ta tem en ts o b ta in ed ; no
evidence obtained by means of
such interviews be used as
evidence at the trial of this ac
tion; . . . —w/cs. cgh
Letter from Fed. Government’s
counsel correcting Para. #4 of
interr. mailed on 10/14/81.
cgh
ORDER — pltf.-inter.’ motion to
compel is denied. Pltf.-inter.’s
mot. to compel deponet Harrell
to ans. the propounded ques
tions is allowed. By 11/3/81,
counsel for pltfs. are to examine
the existing employee list in
pltf.-inter. possession. Counsel
for pltfs. are then to examine the
44
10/27/81
*10/23/81
discovery files of pltf.-inter. ro
discover whether the personnel
record have already be pro
duced. If records of relevant
employees are not available to
pltf., pltfs. may file a request for
production of docu. requiring
defts to produce the personnel
records of these employees for
copying at pltfs’ expense. Such
request should be filed no later
than 11/6/81. Records should
be produced at a mutually con
venient time prior to 11/11/81.
Failure of pltfs. to comply with
this timetable will preclude any
further discovery in this area.
(CIV O.B. #63, p. 256)
(LEONARD, U.S.M.) CC to
counsel, cgh
163 MOT. FOR SEPARATE TRIAL
OF THE ISSUES OF LIABILI
TY & PROSPECTIVE RELIEF
FROM THOSE OF INDIVID
UAL RELIEF BY pltf.-inter. -
w/cs. cgh
164(3b) MEMO. IN SUPPORT OF MOT.
TO SEPARATE THE ISSUES
OF LIABILITY & PROSPEC
TIVE RELIEF FROM THAT
OF INDIVIDUAL RELIEF —
w/cs. cgh
ISSUED NOTICE OF HEARING
ON MOTION FOR PROTEC
TIVE ORDER at 1:00 p.m.,
45
10/27/81
10/28/81
10/29/81
Wed., 10/28/81 in Raleigh,
USM Ctrm., 6th Floor, PO &
Cthse., before USM Leonard.
Hearing changed to Thurs.,
10/29/81 at 11:00 a.m., before
Judge Dupree in Ctrm. No.
1. jwt
165(3b) MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSI
TION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION REGARDING IN
TERVIEWS WITH NCAES
EMPLOYEES w/attachments &
cs (Cy. to J. Dupree) jwt
166 FACTUAL BACKGROUND IN
DISCOVERY SINCE THE
COURT’S ORDER OF 10/9/81
by deft. Motion hearing held
before J. Dupree in Raleigh. Ed
ward D. Riebman, Cressie H.
Thigpen, Jr., Squire Padgett &
Burton Craige for pltfs; Howard
E. Manning, Sr. & Howard E.
Manning, Jr. for defts. Plfts.
were directed to give the defts. a
list of the persons interviewed by
the FBI & to ans. interr. by
11/2/81. Judge to decide on the
bifarcation issue shortly.
167 ORDER - pltfs. to provide counsel
for deft, names of all persons in
employment of defts. who have
been interviewed or are to be in
terviewed by agents of FBI re
this action; pltfs, are not re
quired to disclose to defts.’
counsel statements of info ob-
46
tained by FBI agents from
defts.’ employees, but pltfs. are
required to answer the outstand
ing interr. previously served
upon them by defts. on or
before 11/2/81; defts.’ motion
to disqualify opposing counsel
was w/drawn; this order is
w/out prejudice to defts.’ right
to move to reopen their motion
w/respect to any person whose
name appears on the list of per
son furnished defense counsel
today who is alleged to have
been improperly interviewed
because of his or her position in
the employment of defts.; the
court will consider pltfs.’ motion
to bifurcate the scheduled trial
of this action on 12/7/81 & enter
a ruling thereon w/out further
argument unless it is determined
that a more detailed written
response by defts. to the motion
will be necessary prior to deci
sion—(Dupree, J.) (CIV O.B.
#63, p. 266) cc counsel tt
11/2/81 168 ORDER —upon motion of plff.-
in te rv e rn o r, U .S .A ., for
separate trial of the issue of
liability & prospective relief
from those of individual relief
filed 10/27/81, the court being
of opinion that the interests of
judicial economy will not be
47
11/2/81 169
11/4/81 169a
170
171 (3a)
172
served by such separation, it is
Ordered that the motion be and
the same is hereby denied,
(Dupree, J.) (Civ. OB #63, p.
273) cc to counsel, sm
Rec’d copy of MOTION TO
SH O RTERN TIM E FOR
DEFTS. TO RESPOND TO
PLFF.-INTER VENOR’S
(FILED) REQUEST TO ADMIT
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
IN T E R R O G A T O R IE S -
FOURTH SET
Rec’d copy of MEMORANDUM
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
TO SHORTEN TIME FOR
DEFTS. TO RESPOND TO
PLFF.-INTER VENOR’S RE
QUEST TO ADMIT OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE INTER
ROGATORIES FOURTH SET
FIRST REQUEST OF UNITED
STATES OF AM ERICA,
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS,
FOR THE ADMISSION OF
MATTERS BY THE DEFEN
DANTS, WILLIAM C. FRI
DAY, ET AT, OR IN THE
A LTERN A TIV E INTER-
ROGATORIES-FOURTH SET
APPENDIX A-E (Red Jacket)
DEFTS.’ RESPONSE TO U.S.
MOTION FOR SEPARATE
TRIA L OF ISSUES OF
LIABILITY AND PROSPEC-
48
TIVE RELIEF FROM THOSE
OF INDIVIDUAL RELIEF
(Cy. to Judge by Atty. Man
ning.)
173 DEFTS.’ RESPONSE TO U.S.
M OTION TO SHORTEN
TIME IN WHICH DEFTS.
HAVE TO RESPOND TO
REQUESTS FOR ADMIS
SION OR IN THE ALTERNA
TIVE INTERROGATORIES-
FOURTH SET AND OBJEC
T IO N S, RESPO N SE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
EN LA RG E TIM E FOR
DISCOVERY AND MOTION
FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Cy. to J. Dupree by Atty. Man
ning) jwt
11/3/81 174(3a) PLA IN TIFF-IN TERV EN O R’S
ANSW ERS TO IN T E R
ROGATORIES PROPOUND
ED BY D EFEN D A N TS,
William C. Friday, et al. —w/cs.
cy. J. Dupree tt
175 PLTFS’ RESPONSE TO MO
TIO N FOR SEPA RA TE
TRIAL OF THE ISSUES OF
LIABILITY AND PROSPEC
TIVE RELIEF FROM THOSE
OF INDIVIDUAL RELIEF
AND CLARIFICATION OF
PLTFS’ POSITION-w/cs. cy.
J. Dupree tt
49
176
177
178
11/5/81 179(3a)
11/6/81 180
M O T IO N TO E N L A R G E T IM E
FO R D I S C O V E R Y - pltfs. re
quest that discovery time for
pltfs. be extended to 11/16/81 —
w/cs. cy J. Dupree tt
M O T IO N TO C O M PE L A N
S W E R S TO D E F T S’ IN T E R R .
D IR E C T E D TO U .S .A ., 1ST
A N D 2N D SETS, M O T IO N
FO R S A N C T IO N S -d e ft, pray
for an Order directing the U.S.
to fully & completely answer
outstanding interr. immediately;
& for such other & further relief
& sanctions as may be imposed
p u rsu a n t to Rule 37,
F.R.Civ.P.—w/cs & attach, cy.
J. Dupree tt
ORDER —defts’ motion for a pro
tective order relieving them of
the necessity of responding to
pltfs’ last-minute discovery is
allowed & pltfs’ motion to
enlarge the time for completing
discovery, filed since the dicta
tion of this Order began, is
denied-(DUPREE, J.) (CIV
O.B. #63, p. 286) cc counsel tt
DEFENDANTS’ INTERROGA
TORIES DIRECTED TO THE
U .S.-3R D SET AND RE
QUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS
— w/cs. tt
P L A I N TIFF- I N T E R V E N O R S ’
M O T IO N FOR L E A V E TO
F IL E O U T OF T I M E - pltf-
intervenors’ request leave of this
50
181(3b)
11/6/81 182(3a)
11/10/81 183
184(3b)
11/12/81 185
Court to file out of time the at
tached Response to Defts.’ In-
terr. — w/proposed Order, cy. J.
Dupree tt
PLA1NTIFF-INTERVENORS’
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSI
TION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO COMPEL AND
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MO
TION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
OUT OF TIME AND MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS-w/cs. cy.
J. Dupree tt
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF D O C U M E N T S -w /c s .
mk
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING DEFEN
DANTS’ MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE O R D E R -by
U .S .A . —w /cs. Cy. to J.
Dupree, cgh
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO RECON
SIDER ORDER GRANTING
DEFTS’ MOTION FOR A
PROTECTIVE ORDER by
U.S. A. — w /cs. Cy. to J.
Dupree, cgh
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
D EFEN D A N TS’ M OTION
FOR A PR O TE C T IV E
ORDER — w/cs & attach, cy. J.
Dupree tt
51
11/13/81
186 ORDER —motion to compel an
swers to interr. 1-12 & 85-88 is
denied w/out prejudice to defts’
right to renew the motion for
sanctions should the info be
later found in a form that the
U.S. should have uncovered
w/reasonable diligence; pltf-
intervenor is directed to obtain
& produce for defts. whatever
documents re number of black
employees w/particular degree
for a particular year on or
before 11/17/81; pltf-inter-
venors are directed to respond to
interr. 17-38, 39-52 & 67-80 as
propounded & w/specificity on
or before 11/18/81; pltf-
intervenor is directed to answer
interr. 81-84 on or before
11/18/81; this case remains on
the 11/23/81 pre-trial calendar
& the 12/7/81 trial calendar-
(LEONARD, M.) (CIV O.B.
#63, p. 305) cc counsel tt
187 DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS
TO PL A IN T 1FF-IN T E R -
VENORS UNITED STATES’
IN TER RO G A TO R IES TO
D E F E N D A N T S ’ - T H IR D
SET, MOTION FOR A PRO
TECTIVE O R D E R -d e fts .
prays for a Protective Order per
mitting defts. not to answer the
third set of interr. from the
U.S. —w/cs. tt
52
11/17/81
188 ORDER —pltfs’ motion to recon
sider order granting defts’ mo
tion for protective order filed
11/10/81 is denied —(DUPREE,
J.) (CIV O.B. #63, p. 309) cc
counsel tt
189(3b) SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORAN
DUM IN SUPPORT OF MO
TION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING DEFEN
DANTS’ MOTION FOR PRO
TECTIVE ORD ER-by pltf-in-
tervenors — vv/cs & attach, tt
190(3b) M EM ORANDUM IN R E
SPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
O B JEC T IO N S TO THE
UNITED STATES’ THIRD
SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND IN RESPONSE TO
D EFEN D A N TS’ M OTION
FOR A PR O TE C T IV E
ORDER —by p l tf .- in te r -
venors —w/cs & attach, tt
191 ORDER —pltfs.’motion to compel
production of the approximately
350 personnel data cards is
denied; defts. not having ob
jected to production of the 31
personnel records sought, that
issue is now moot - (LEONARD
M.) (CIV O.B. #63, p. 318) cc
counsel tt
Memo to Counsel of Record ad
vising that Judge Dupree will
conduct the final pre-trial con
ference on 11/23/81 in Ctrm. #1
at time scheduled, tt
53
11/17/81 192(3a)
193(3a)
11/19/81 194(3a)
195
11/20/81 196
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S
ANSWERS TO DEFEND
ANTS’ INTERROGATORIES
THIRD SET AND ANSWERS
TO REQUESTS FOR ADMIS
SIONS—w/cs. tt
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS
(PART I) TO INTERROGA
TORIES PROPOUNDED BY
DEFENDANTS, WILLIAM C.
FRIDAY, ET AL. - w/attach.
(2 & 3 in separate folder) &
cs. tt
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR’S
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS
(PART II) TO INTERROGA
TORIES PROPOUNDED BY
DEFENDANTS, WILLIAM C.
FRIDAY, ET A L .-w /cs & at
tach. tt
ORDER — defts.’ motion for a pro
tective order permitting defts.
not to answer the 3rd set of in-
te rr . from the U .S. is
allowed-(DUPREE, J.) (CIV
O.B. #63, p. 323) cc counsel
M O T I O N F O R S U M M A R Y
J U D G M E N T O N D EFEN D
A N T S ’ C O U N T E R C L A IM - b y
pltf. — intervenors John R.
Block, Sec. of Agriculture &
Mary Nell Greenwood, Ad
ministrator of the Federal Ex
tension Service —w/cs. tt
54
11/20/81
11/23/81
197(3b) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON DEFEND
ANT’S COUNTERCLAIM-by
pltf. — intervenors —w/cs. tt
(Joh R. Block, Sec. of
Agriculture & M. N. Green
wood, Administrator of the
Federal Extension Service)
198 M O T IO N TO C O M P E L A N -
S W E R S TO I N T E R R O G A -
TO R IE S A N D M O T I O N FOR
D IS C O V E R Y S A N C T IO N S —
pltf. — intervenor U.S.A. moves
the Court to compel defts. to
answer U.S.’ Interr. to Defts.
3rd Set, filed 10/14/81, before
the final pre-trial conference
scheduled for 11/23/81—w/cs.
tt
199(3b) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTIONS TO COMPEL
ANSWERS TO INTERROGA
TORIES AND FOR DISCOV
ERY SANCTIONS-by pltf. —
intervenor U.S.A.— w/cs. tt
D E PO SIT IO N OF EDW IN
YANCY, SR. taken in Raleigh,
N.C. on 10/30/81.
DEPOSITION OF J. D. DOD
SON taken in Raleigh, N.C. on
10/30/81.
DEPOSITION OF J. D. DOD
SON, PART II
DEPOSITION OF PHIL HASS
taken in Raleigh, N.C., on
10/22/81. Not original.
55
DEPOSITION OF EDGAR J.
BOONE taken in Raleigh, N.C.,
on 10/23/81.
DEPOSITION OF DONALD L.
STORMER taken in Raleigh,
N.C., on 10/23/81.
DEPOSITION OF THOMAS C.
BLALOCK taken in Raleigh,
N.C., on 10/23/81.
DEPOSITION OF LEONARD
RALPH SASSER taken in
Raleigh, N.C., on 10/30/81.
DEPOSITION OF MARTHA
RUTH JOHNSON taken in
Raleigh, N.C., on 10/29/81.
DEPOSITION OF DR. DANIEL
GODFREY taken in Raleigh,
N.C., on 10/22/81.
DEPOSITION OF ZACKIE W.
HARRELL taken on 10/15/81.
DEPOSITION OF ZACKIE W.
HARRELL, PART II, taken in
Raleigh, N.C., on 10/29/81.
DEPOSITION OF TALMADGE
BAKER in Raleigh, N.C., on
10/22/81.
DEPOSITION OF DEWEY GIL
BERT HARWOOD, JR. taken
on 10/9/81.
DEPOSITION OF JOSEPHINE
PA TTERSO N taken on
10/9/81.
DEPOSITION OF JOHN RICH
ARDSON taken on 10/15/81.
DEPOSITION OF GEORGE W.
O’NEAL taken on 10/15/81.
56
200
201 (3b)
202
203
DEPOSITION OF CLYDE D.
PEED IN , SR., taken on
10/15/81.
DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH
MELDAU taken in Raleigh,
N.C., on 10/30/81.
DEPOSITION OF HUGH LUP-
TON LIN ER taken on
10/16/81.
DEPOSITION OF HUGH LUP-
TON LINER, VOL. II, taken in
Raleigh, N.C., on 10/23/81.
DEPOSITION OF DR. PAUL
DEW taken on 10/16/81. cgh
DEFTS’ RESPONSE TO U.S.’
MOTION TO COMPEL ANS.
TO INTERR. & MOT. FOR
DISCOVERY SANCTIONS-
w/cs.
MEMO. IN SUPPORT OF MO
TIONS FOR SANCTIONS BY
defts. — w/cs.
DEFTS MOTION FOR SANC
TIO N S A G A IN ST THE
UNITED STATES, RULE 37,
F .R .C iv .P . — w /cs & a t
tachments. cgh
MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION
OF PARTIES by pltfs. to
substitute spouses of deceased
pltfs. Cy. to opposing counsel in
courtroom. (Filed in Open
Court) 204 MOTION TO
AMEND by pltfs. in Re: to
pltfs. that have just gotten
“Right to Sue” letters. Cy. to op
posing counsel in courtroom.
(Filed in Open Court.) W/at-
tachments.
57
11/23/81
11/24/81
205 AFFIDAVIT of Burton Craige re:
the photocopying of Personnel
Data cards. Cy. to opposing
counsel in courtroom. (Filed in
Open Court.)
206(3b) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF APPEAL by pltf.’s from
Mag. Leonard’s Order of
11/17/81. Cy. to opposing
counsel in courtroom. (Filed in
Open Court) cgh
Motion hearing & Pre-Trial con
ference held before J. Dupree in
Raleigh, N.C. Cressie Thigpen,
Ed Reibman, Squire Padgett &
Burton Craige for pltfs.:
Howard Manning, Sr., Howard
Manning, Jr., & Millard Rich
for the defts. All motions must
be filed by 11/25/81 at 5:00
p.m. & responses filed by 5:00
p.m. on 11/27/81. Final P/T to
be at 10:00 a.m. on 11/30/81.
ETT: 12 weeks, cgh.
Received from Atty. Craige a
packet of info, containing date
on current USDA employees by
educational degree & race —re
sponding in part to Mag.
Leonard’s Order of 11/12/81.
cgh
207(46) SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORAN
DUM IN SUPPORT OF AP
PEAL-pltfs. again request that
they be permitted to copy said
58
i 1/25/81
11/27/81
personal data cards prior to trial
or, in the alt, subpoena them for
use at trial — w/cs. cy. J. Dupree
tt
208 MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE
OF DEFENDANT’S LIA
BILITY—by pltf.-intervenor
U.S.A.—w/cs. tt
209(4b) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE
OF DEFENDANTS’ LIA
BILITY—by pltf.-intervenor
U.S.A.—w/cs. tt
210 MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION
OF PARTIES-Thelma Groves
Turner for pltf. J.S. Turner,
deceased —w/cs. cgh
211 DEFTS’ RESPONSE TO THE
U.S.’S MOTION FOR SUM.
JUDG. ON TFIE ISSUE OF
DEFTS’ LIABILITY asking that
it be denied — w/cs & affidavit of
Thomas Carlton Blalock &
Francis Giesbrecht. cgh
212 DEFTS’ RESPONSE TO THE
U.S. MOTION FOR SUM.
JUDG. ON THE ISSUE OF
DEFTS’ COUNTERCLAIM
AGAINST THE USDA & FOR
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF-w /cs
& attachments, cgh
213(4b) P L T F . — I N T E R V E N O R S
MEMO. IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFTS’ MOTION FOR SANC
TIONS-w/cs.
59
11/30/81 214 DEFTS’ TRIAL MEMO. PUR.
TO LOCAL RULE 26.04
EDNC —w/cs. cgh
215 DEFTS’ PRE-TRIAL FINDING
OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW LOCAL RULE 26.07,
EDNC —w/cs. cgh
Final P/T Conference held before
J. Dupree in Raleigh, N.C. Ed
ward D. Reibman, Cressie
Thigpen, Jr., Squire Padgett &
Burton Craige for p ltfs.:
Howard M anning, Sr. &
Howard Manning, Jr. for defts.
Pltfs’ mot. to amend re: Title
VII claims is allowed. Pltfs’ mot.
for substitution of parties is
allowed. Mot. for sum. judg. on
counterclaim is denied. Mot. for
sum. judg. on defts’ liabilities is
denied. Defts’ mot. for sanctions
is denied. Mag. Leonard’s ruling
is affirmed, cgh
216 PL T FS’ AMENDED COM
PLAINT—pltfs. pray that defts.
are enjoined from failing to pro
vide services to minorities equal
to those they provide to whites;
maintaining segregated 4-H
Clubs & Ext. Homemaker
Clubs; providing services to 4-H
Clubs, Ext. Homemaker Clubs,
farmers, etc. on a segregated
basis; & engaging in any
discrim inatory employment
practice based on race or na
tional origin. They ask for a
60
217
218
219
12/3/81 220
12/4/81 221
222
12/7/81 223
recruitment program, establish
ment of valid qualifications, hir
ing of minorities, promoting of
minorities; providing monetary
compensation to minorities for
losses & backpay w/cs. cgh
MEMORANDUM OF PR E
TR IA L C O M PL IA N C E —
w/exhibit list, witnesses, conten
tions, stipulations, ETT: 12
weeks, cgh
PLTF.-INTERVENORS’ OBJEC
TIONS TO DEFTS’ EXHIBITS
No. 76, 175, 67(1)-(100). cgh
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF
FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW by pltf. — intervenors’ —
w/cs. cgh
DEFTS’ ANSWER TO PLTF’S
AMENDED COMPLAINT -
praying action be dismissed &
costs taxed to pltfs. — w/cs.
cgh
PLTF’S RESPONSE TO DEFTS’
O B JEC T IO N S TO E X
HIBITS—pltfs. request objec
tions be denied —w/cs.
PLTF.-IN TERV EN O RS’ RE
SPONSE TO DEFTS’ OBJEC
TIONS TO EXHIBITS —re
questing o b jec tio n s be
denied —w/cs. cgh
M O TIO N TO PRO D U CE
SOURCE DATE OF DEFTS’
EXHIBITS 67(l)-(100)-w/affi-
davit of Doris M. Fuller, cgh
61
12/17/81
12/21/81
12/28/81
*12/29/81
1/4/82
1/7/82
TRANSCRIPT of Non-jury trial,
Mon., 12/7/81, before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C.
Volume 1, pages 1-191. cgh
TRANSCRIPT of Non-Jury Trial,
Wed., 12/9/81, before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C.,
Volume III, pages 444-672.
cgh
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Tues., 12/8/81 -V ol. 2.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Thurs., 12/10/81-V ol. 4.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Mon., 12/14/81-V ol. 5.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Tues., 12/15/81-V ol. 6.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Wed., 12/16/81-V ol. 7.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Thurs., 12/17/81 -V ol. 8.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on Fri.
12/18/81-V ol. 9.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Mon., 12/21/81-V ol. 10.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Tues., 12/22/81-V ol. 11.
62
1/11/82
1/12/82
1/13/82 224
1/19/82
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Wed., 12/23/81-V ol. 12.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Mon., 12/28/81-V ol. 13.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Tues., 12/29/81-V ol. 14.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Wed., 12/30/81-V ol. 15.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Tues., 1/5/82 —Vol. 17.
ORDER —all portions of tran
script ordered by & delivered to
the parties during the course of
the trial within 10 days from the
date taken or ordered, the
charge shall be $4.00/page,
which amt. may be divided
equally between the U.S. &
defts. (CIV O.B. #64, p. 141)
(DUPREE, J.) CC to counsel,
cgh
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Mon., 1/4/82 — Vol. 16.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Wed., 1/6/82 —Vol. 18.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Thurs., 1/7/82 —Vol. 19.
63
1/22/82
1/26/82
1/27/82
*12/28/81
1/29/82
2/1/82
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Fri., 1/8/82 —Vol. 20.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Mon., 1/11/82 —Vol. 21.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Tues., 1/12/82 —Vol. 22
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Wed., 1/13/82 —Vol. 23.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Tues., 1/19/82 — Vol. 24.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Wed., 1/20/82 —Vol. 25.
225 DEFTS’ MOT. TO DISMISS
CLAIMS OF CERTAIN IN
DIVIDUAL PLTFS. PUR. TO
RULE 41(b) & RULE 37(b) —
w/cs. (Filed in Open Court)
cgh
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Thurs., 1/21/82 —Vol. 26.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Fri., 1/22/82 —Vol. 27.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Mon., 1/15/82 —Vol. 28.
64
2/2/82
2/8/82 226
227
2/8/82 228
229
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Tues., 1/26/82 —Vol. 29.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Wed., 1/27/82 —Vol. 30.
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Thurs., 1/28/82-V ol. 31.
Non-Jury Trial began on Mon.
Dec. 12, 1981, before J. Dupree
in Raleigh, N.C. Ed Reibman,
C ressie T h igpen , Squire
Padgett, & Burton Craige for
the pltfs. Howard Manning, Sr.
Howard Manning, Jr., Millard
Rich, Jr. for the defts. 31 days
for the trial. Final arguments to
be heard on 2 /12 /82 , at 10:00
a.in. before J. Dupree, cgh
.. FILE # 5 .......................................
DEFTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
CLAIMS OF CERTAIN IN
DIVIDUAL PLTFS. PUR. TO
R. 41(b) & R. 37(b) —w/cs.
DEFTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS
OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW -w /cs.
DEFENDANTS’ POST TRIAL
MEMORANDUM - w/cs.
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM
& PROPOSED CONCLU
SIONS OF LAW & FA CT-
w/cs.
65
230
2/11/82 231
232
File #6
233
2/19/82
234
235
POST TRIAL FINDINGS OF
FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
LAW & PROPOSED DECREE
OF UNITED STATES OF
A M ER IC A , P L A IN T IF F -
INTER VENOR-w/cs.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
FINDINGS OF FACT & CON
CLUSIONS OF LAW -w /cs.
DEFTS’ PROPOSED FINDINGS
OF FACT MARKED IN AC
CORDANCE W /J. DUPREE’S
INSTRUCTIONS w /c s -b y
Pltf. — intervenor.
File #5 to J. Dupree. Red folder.
cgh
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION by pltf. as to the
filling of county ext. head in
Hertford Co. — w/attachments
&cs. cgh
TRANSCRIPT of trial before J.
Dupree in Raleigh, N.C., on
Fri., 2/12/82 —Vol. 32.
APPENDICES TO PROPOSED
DECREE, FILED ON FEB. 9,
1982 —vv/cs & attachments.
ERRATA LIST TO U.S.’ PRO
POSED FINDINGS OF FACT,
FILED ON FEB. 9, 1982 & TO
U.S.’ MARKED COPY OF
DEFTS’ PROPOSED FIND
INGS OF FACT, FILED ON
2/11/82 —w/cs.
66
236
3/2/82 237
3/5/82 238
3/26/82 239
8/20/82 240
241
REPLY BRIEF to defts’ asking to
discard the expert’s witness, Dr.
Charles Mann, statistical rec
ords—w/cs.
Cys. of entries 234, 235 & 236 to
J. Dupree. cgh
DEFTS’ RESPONSE TO PLTFS’
MOT. FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION — pltfs’ mot. for
prel. injunc. as to Hertford Co.
should be denied —w/cs. cgh
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION by pltf. in re: to
vacant position of Co. Ext.
Chairman in Warren Co. —w/cs
& attachment. cgh
DEFTS’ RESPONSE TO PLTFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMIN
ARY INJUNCTION asking for
denial —w/cs & exhibit A, B &
C. cgh
ORDER SUBSTITUTING PAR
TIES—Elizabeth Ivey, Admini
stratrix of the Estate of D. O.
Ivey, deceased; Eva L. Greene,
Administratix of the Estate of
Cleo Rich Greene; & Thelma
Graves Turner, Administratix of
the Estate of J. A. Turner, are
substituted as parties pltf. of the
deceased pltfs.-(DUPREE, J.)
(CIV O.B. #66, p. 195) cc
counsel tt
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
(CLASS-WIDE CLAIMS) —
Court finds that while there was
67
ample evidence of disparate
treatment of blacks by the Ex
tension Service prior to enact
ment of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, since that time deft, has
made conscientious & successful
efforts to erradicate the effects
of past discrimination, has at no
time engaged in purposeful dis
crimination & pltfs. have fallen
short of establishing a prepond
erance of the evidence that deft,
has engaged in a pattern & prac
tice of discrimination; order will
enter dismissing the pattern &
practice suit of the U.S. as
pltf.-intervenor; the claims of
the 45 individual pltfs. will be
the subject of a separate memo,
of decision & order-(DUPREE,
J.) (CIV O.B. 66, p. 196) cc
counsel tt
242 ORDER DISMISSING COUNT
ERCLAIM - USDA’s mot. for
sum. judg. on the counterclaim
of the Extension Service is de-
nied —(DUPREE, J.) (CIV O.B.
#66, p. 197) cc counsel tt
243 ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO
C ER TA IN IN D IV ID U A L
CLAIMS —mot. of defts. to dis
miss the individual claims of
Henry Revell, Chester Stocks,
E. C. Short, Calvin Hargrove,
Robert Lee Lancaster, Clifton
Parker, Dorothy M. Hearne,
68
Louise Penn Slade, Alma
Hobbes, Inez Foster, George
Koonce, Lloyd Peace, Marilyn
Rich White, Mary Crawford,
Elizabeth Ivey (Admin, of
Estate of D. O. Ivey) & Essie
Moore is allowed & the action as
it relates to these named pltfs. is
dismissed w/prejudice —(DU
PREE, J.) (CIV O.B. #66, p.
198) cc counsel tt
8/20/82 244 JUDGMENT ON CLASS-WIDE
CLAIMS — U.S. as pltf.-inter-
venor is not entitled to recover
of the defts., or any of them, by
reason of any matters alleged in
the original complaint in inter
vention or the amend, complaint
in intervention & that the action
of the pltf.-intervenor be & is
dismissed w/costs —(DUPREE,
J.) (CIV O.B. #66, p. 199) cc
counsel tt
245 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
AS TO INDIANS-insofar as
the action undertakes to assert a
cause of action on behalf of In
dians, the same is dismissed —
(DUPREE, J.) (CIV O.B. #66,
p. 200) cc counsel tt
246 ORDER OVERRULING MO
TION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION-mot. of pltfs.
for a preliminary injunction
filed 2/11/82 w/respect to the
co. extension chairmanship in
69
Hertford Co., N.C. is overruled
& dismissed as moot —(DU
PREE, J.) (CIV O.B. #66, p.
201) cc counsel tt
247 ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR PRELIM INARY IN
J U N C T I O N - W A R R E N
COUNTY —pltfs.’ mot. for pre
liminary injunction filed 3/5/82
w/re to vacant position of co.
ext. chairman in Warren Co. is
denied but w/out prejudice to
such rights as George Koonce
may have, or claim to have,
w/respect to the failure of defts.
to recommend him for appoint
ment as co. ext. chairman to fill
vacancy created by retirement of
L. C. Cooper-(DUPREE, J.)
(CIV O.B. #66, p. 202) cc coun
sel tt
9/14/82 248 NOTICE OF A PPEA L-by pltfs.
W/CS. Filed copy to counsel,
Judge Dupree, Court of Appeals
including CC of index, trans
mittal letter. Copy of order ap
pealed from to Court of Ap
peals. keb
9/17/82 249 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
(INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS) —
judg. to be entered dismissing
the individual claims as the Ext.
Service endeavored to comply
with the law. (DUPREE, J.)
(CIV O.B. #67, p. 34) CC to
counsel. cgw
70
250
9/29/82 251
10/7/82 252
10/19/82 253
254
255(4b)
10/19/82 256
JUDGMENT-this action is dis
missed as to all individual pltfs.
Each side will bear its own costs.
(CIV O.B. #67, p. 35) (DU
PREE, J.) (ENT. 9/17/82) CC
to counsel.
NOTICE OF APPEAL-each of
the above named plaintiffs ap
peal to the U.S. Court of Ap
peals for the Fourth Circuit
from the Judgment and Memo
randum of Decision (Individual
Claims) entered in this action on
the 17th day of September,
1982. W/CS. Filed copy to
Counsel, Judge Dupree and
Court of appeals with CC of in
dex and transmittal letter. keb
DESIGNATION OF RECORD
ON A PPEA L-by defendants.
W/CS. keb
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
AN AW ARD OF A T
TORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES-by defts.
W/CS. keb
AFFIDAVIT OF HOWARD
MANNING, Sr. in support of
defts. W/CS. keb
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION FOR AND
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’
FEES, COSTS AND EX
PENSES-by defts. W/CS. keb
NOTICE OF A P P E A L -b y
U.S.A., plaintiff intervenor.
71
10/20/82 257
10/27/82 258
11/8/82
11/8/82 259
11/15/82 260
12/2/82 261
W/CS. Filed copy to the Court
of Appeals with transmittal let
ter and CC of Index. Copies to
counsel, (entered 10/21/82) keb
DESIGNATION OF RECORD -
by Edward Reibman, atty for
pltfs. W/CS. keb
DESIGNATION OF RECORD -
by USA W/CS. keb
Mailed record on appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals including
Volumes I thru XVII —plead
ings, XVIII and XIX —memo
randa, XXXIV thru XLIII —
transcripts, with cc of index and
transmittal letter. Copies to
counsel. Volumes XX thru XX-
XIII (exhibits) to be forwarded
by counsel. keb
MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR AND AWARD OF AT
TORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS
AND EXPENSES-by USA.
W/CS. keb
NOTICE OF A PPEA L-by USA
from the September 17, 1982
order. Filed copies to counsel,
Judge Dupree, and 4th Circuit
with transmittal letter.
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFEND
ANTS’ MOTION FOR AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEY
FEES, COSTS, AND EX
PENSES - by pltfs. W/CS. keb
72
12/8/82 262
4/29/85 263
264
265
5/14/85 266
ORDER —the ruling on defend
ant’s motion for attorneys’ fees,
costs and expenses will be stayed
pending plaintiffs’ appeal to the
Fourth Circuit Court of Ap
peals. (Dupree) CIV OB #68, pg.
8. CC to counsel.
PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE
FOURTH CIRCUIT-Affirm
ing the decision of the dist. ct.
CC to Judge Dupree. jrj
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS-AFFIRMED.
CC to Judge Dupree. jrj
BILL OF COSTS —costs are taxed
by the Clerk of the US Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
in the amount of 225.00 CC to
Judge Dupree. jrj
Case file to Judge Dupree for rul
ing on motion for attorneys fees,
costs and expenses. Record in
Room 630. jrj
ORDER —that the defts. motion
for attorneys’ fees is DENIED
and defts. motion for costs on
appeal is ALLOWED. (DU
PREE) CIV OB #78, p. 171. CC
to parties. jrj
73
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
C ivil No . 2879
P. E. Bazemore, et al., plaintiffs
vs.
United States of A merica, et al.,
PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS
VS.
W illiam C. Friday, As P resident
of the University of North Carolina, et al.,
defendants
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
CIV. O.B. #54, P. 41
Various black employees and service recipients of the
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (NCAES)
brought this action on November 18, 1971 pursuant to 42
U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 2000d (Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964) against multiple government officials
alleging racial segregation and discrimination in employ
ment practices and delivery of services by the NCAES.
Plaintiffs generally contend that (1) black NCAES
employees receive lesser pay and positions on account of
their race; (2) NCAES services are segregated and blacks
receive inferior service from the NCAES; (3) the NCAES
maintains racially segregated Homemaker Extension
Clubs and 4-H Clubs.
74
The defendants are the United States Secretary of
Agriculture; the Administrator of the Federal Extension
Service; the president of the Consolidated University of
North Carolina (UNC); the Chancellor of North Carolina
State University (NCSU); the Director of NCAES; the
Board of Governors of UNC; UNC; and three county
commissioners. All individual defendants are sued in their
official capacities.
On April 7, 1972, the United States intervened as a
party-plaintiff. The defendants thereafter filed a third-
party complaint against the Secretary of Agriculture and
Administrator of the Federal Extension Service in their of
ficial and individual capacities. The court realigned the
third-party defendants, however, as plaintiff-intervenors
on July 21, 1972. The parties engaged in extensive
discovery until the completion date on March 23, 1973.
Since then, the court has conducted two pre-trial con
ferences, one as recently as December 29, 1978. Currently
pending are five matters awaiting decision: (1) plaintiffs’
motion to certify proposed plaintiff and defendant classes;
(2) plaintiff United States’ motion to amend the interven
tion complaint to include allegations of racial and sexual
discrimination in violation of Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
et seq.; (3) question of whether the Eleventh Amendment
bars recovery of back pay; (4) the Secretary of
Agriculture’s motion to dismiss defendants’ counterclaim
(formerly designated as third-party complaint prior to
realignment); and (5) plaintiffs’ motion to reopen
discovery.
CLASS CERTIFICATION
A. Proposed P la in tiff Classes.
Plaintiffs first seek to certify four subclasses consisting
of black and Indian NCAES service recipients and
members of Extension Homemaker and 4-H Clubs, pur-
75
suant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).1 Plaintiffs contend that only
black agents are assigned to render services to black
NCAES recipients and that the Extension Homemaker
and 4-H Clubs are racially segregated in contravention of
the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.
Rule 23(b)(2) was tailored to remedy this type of alleged
discrimination, for civil rights actions are by their nature
amenable to class relief. Black plantiffs have, therefore,
often represented fellow blacks who receive services on a
segregated basis. E .g ., Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31,
32-33 (1962), cited in East Texas M o to r Freight v.
Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403 (1977); N esm ith v. Young
M en ’s Christian A ssociation o f Raleigh, N .C ., 273 F.
Supp. 502 (E.D.N.C. 1967), reversed on other grounds,
397 F.2d 96 (4th Cir. 1968). Discrimination cases do not,
however, qualify as class actions per se. The burden is
upon the moving plaintiffs to prove the requirements of
Rule 23 are met. Plaintiffs do not carry their burden mere
ly because of their race or request for class relief. D octor
v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad C om pany, 540 F.2d 699
(4th Cir. 1976). Nor do they carry the burden by filing
“boilerplate memoranda laden with self-serving conclu
sions.” Shelton v. Pargo, Inc., 582 F.2d 1298, 1312-13 (4th
Cir. 1978). Rather, the moving party must come forward
with facts obtained in extensive discovery showing the
necessity for class relief. Id .; see Shawe, Processing the
Explosion in Title VII Class A ction Suits: Achieving In
creased Com pliance With Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure
23(a), 19 Wm. & Mary L.Rev. 469, 516-17 (1978).
1 “An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites
of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:
* * * * * *
“(2) The party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on
grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate
final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect
to the class as a whole;”
76
The parties have engaged in extensive discovery in this
case; but the only factual basis brought forward by the
plaintiffs in support of class certification is their unveri
fied complaint. Plaintiffs have pointed to no facts within
the record built by discovery showing the prerequisites of
Rule 23 have been met.2 Plaintiffs have therefore failed to
meet the burden imposed upon them to show the need for
class certification of NCAES service recipients, and the
motion for class certification of the putative subclasses is
therefore denied.
Plaintiffs also seek class certification of all NCAES
black and Indian employees since November 18, 1971.
Certification of this class must be denied for the same
reasons enunciated above. However, certification of this
putative class would remain unlikely even if plaintiffs were
able to make a substantial factual showing, for the courts
have tightened Rule 23 standards in employment
discrimination cases. Shawe, supra. A brief description of
the NCAES program reveals the rationale for the in
creased restrictions.
The NCAES was established as a part of NCSU by
federal and state legislation for the specific purpose of ex
tending the University’s educational service to North
Carolina farm families on subjects relating to agriculture,
home economics, and youth, as well as community and
natural resource development. The Service is the principal
means by which the University’s research findings and the
subjects are communicated to the people.
2 Plaintiffs’ counsel represented to the court during the pre-trial
conference held December 29, 1978 that they would come forward
with information gained from discovery, summarize it, and submit it
in support of their class certification motion (see Tr. pp. 45-46). The
court never received this information.
77
The Service operates as a partnership between three
levels of government - federal, state and county. These
levels are officially represented by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), NCSU, and the
county boards of commissioners. The Service operates in
each of North Carolina’s one hundred counties, with a
small percentage of its employees located in the Raleigh
headquarters. By this arrangement, county extension
agents are joint employees of NCSU and the counties in
which they work. They are also official representatives of
the USDA.
The NCAES provides a share of the salaries for the
county personnel. The salaries are determined jointly by
the Service and the county board of commissioners. The
NCAES sets the minimum requirements and qualifications
for employment and receives and examines applications. It
recommends qualified applicants to the county commis
sioners. The Service accepts responsibility for the ad
ministration and supervision of the extension programs
and provides a staff of specialists to continuously train the
agents in the current technology. In return, each county
provides a share of the salaries as well as office space and
equipment, etc.
The counties confer with the Service on all personnel ac
tion and proposed programs so that they may be tailored
to the special needs of the particular counties. Indeed,
North Carolina counties vary widely in size, population,
topography and agrarian needs. Thus, the labor market
available to each county widely differs according to
geographic perferences and particular skills needed.
Moreover, the racial composition of each county varies.
For instance, blacks constitute a majority in some of the
eastern tobacco counties, while blacks are a rarity in some
of the western regions.
One must conclude, therefore, that “across-the-board”
employment discrimination by the NCAES in each of the
one hundred counties could not be done in a manner so
78
that each victim’s claim would be guaranteed to be
“typical” of the other claims within the class, as required
by Rule 23(a). The Supreme Court requires that the
district court must assure itself that the class represen
tatives are in fact members of the class they purport to
represent. Because the manner of employment discrimina
tion widely varies according to different work facilities,
available personnel and managerial needs, the burden of
proving that the class representatives are in fact members
of a broad class in “across-the-board” employment
discrimination cases is difficult. Moreover, the Fourth
Circuit requires in employment discrimination cases that
all the plaintiff representatives and all the class members
must be from the same work facility within an employer’s
network of multiple work locations and in the same type
of employ, H ill v. Western Electric Com pany, Inc., 596
F.2d 99, 102 (4th Cir. 1979), particularly when the multi
ple work facilities draw from different labor markets and
have different types of work positions. Patterson v.
Am erican Tobacco Com pany, 535 F.2d 257 (4th Cir.
1976). A representative plaintiff cannot represent workers
within the same facility who hold a different type of job or
employees in different facilities with the same kind of job.
Hill, 596 F.2d at 102.
In the instant case, black and Indian NCAES employees
are scattered over the state, holding different jobs and
specialities according to the needs of the particular coun
ties in which they work. The representative plaintiffs of
the putative class come from roughly thirty of the one
hundred counties. In no sense can they be deemed to work
within the same facility or hold the same job or position as
each of the other black and Indian NCAES employees in
the remaining seventy counties. Accordingly, the in
dividual plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be members of the
class which they purport to represent. Rodriguez, supra.
Class certification of the plaintiff employee class is
therefore denied.
79
B. D efendant Class.
Plaintiffs have also moved to certify as a class all county
commissioners of North Carolina’s 100 counties. The mo
tion is meritorious at first blush, for any judicial decree
imposed upon the NCAES would directly affect the gov
erning bodies of each of the counties. The county commis
sioners work closely with NCAES officials, and any
restraint upon the NCAES would necessarily restrain the
commissioners. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs cannot main
tain an action against all the county commissioners for
lack of standing to sue. No Article III “case or contro
versy” exists when a representative plaintiff has not suf
fered an “injury in fact” imposed by each m em ber of the
putative defendant class. O ’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488
(1974); Weiner v. B ank o f K ing o f Prussia, 358 F. Supp.
684 (E.D. Pa. 1973).3 Here, the prerequisites of Rule 23
are likely met; nevertheless, the plaintiffs cannot
bootstrap themselves into standing they lack under the
Constitution merely because they fulfill the requirements
of the federal rules. Weiner, 358 F. Supp. at 694, citing 28
U.S.C. § 2072 (Rules Enabling Act); Comment, Jurisdical
Links Exception to the Typicality Requirem ent in M ultiple
D efendant Class Actions: The Relationship o f Standing
and Typicality, 58 Boston Univ.L.Rev. 492, 497 (1978).
Because not all of the plaintiffs have dealt with every
county commissioner in North Carolina, they cannot es
tablish direct injury caused by each defendant class mem
ber. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to certify the defen
dant class is denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
MOTION TO AMEND INTERVENTION COMPLAINT
The United States moved on February 28, 1975 to
amend its intervention complaint to include allegations of
3 The requirement that each representative plaintiff must be injured
by each member of the defendant class is not eased if a plaintiff class
if certified. O ’S h e a , su p ra .
80
racial and sexual discrimination in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, ei seq. The
defendants strenuously object to the motion, citing delay
and the burden that would be placed upon the defendant
should the amendment be allowed.
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that leave to amend “shall be freely given if justice so re
quires.” Whether justice requires leave to amend depends,
however, upon a balancing of the factors enunciated in
Fom an v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962): (1) whether an
amendment would unduly delay the litigation; (2) whether
the motion is made in good faith; (3) whether the non
movant would be unduly prejudiced by allowance of the
amendment; and (4) whether the amendment on its face
would fail to be of benefit to the movant’s case.
First, a substantial probability exists that the litigation
would be unduly delayed should the United States’ pro
posed amended complaint be allowed in its entirety. An in
quiry into whether the defendants have engaged in sexual
discrimination in violation of Title VII would introduce a
new lawsuit into this already prolonged litigation. Insofar
as the amended complaint alleges racial discrimination,
however, a delay would not likely be caused. The parties
have already engaged in substantial discovery and fact in
vestigations, the fruits of which can be used to prove viola
tions of Title VII as well as Title VI and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981
and 1983. Moreover, the case has not been calendered for
trial.
Nevertheless, the case is one of the oldest on the Eastern
District’s docket. Two pre-trial conferences have been held
as well as a lengthy motion hearing. Should the amend
ment concerning sexual discrimination be allowed, the
court’s efforts to adjudicate the thousands of other cases
awaiting ruling in this one-judge district would be further
frustrated.
81
Secondly, the record does not reveal that the delayed
motion has been made with any malevolent purpose. It
was settled only recently that the United States could bring
Title VII actions against governmental entities. Still, the
United States delayed three years after Congressional
authorization to bring Title VII suits and two years after
the close of discovery in bringing this motion. Defendants’
counsel were not apprised of the plaintiffs’ concerns with
sexual discrimination until one month before the motion
was filed.
Thirdly, the amendment manifestly would aid the plain
tiffs’ case due to the more lenient standard of proof and
the availability of money damages against the state in Title
VII actions. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, A l l U.S. 445 (1976).
Fourth, the likelihood of undue prejudice to the defen
dants is high should the amendment be allowed. The issues
have been joined in this action for roughly nine years; the
parties have expended considerable time, effort and
money. Should allegations of sexual discrimination be
allowed, defendants would be forced to incur increased
costs and attorney fees while their counsel would be engag
ing in further protracted discovery and investigation into
discrimination in the NCAES based upon sex. On the
other hand, little additional effort would be required in
order to shed light on racial discrimination as applied to
Title VII.
The court concludes upon balancing these facts that the
amendment should be allowed, but only insofar as it
alleges racial discrimination. Insofar as the amended com
plaint alleges sexual discrimination, however, the motion
to amend is denied. The court’s ruling strikes a balance
between protecting the rights of the original plaintiffs
under all the applicable statutes and the court’s respon
sibility to insure continuous and expedited flow of its
docket.
82
RECOVERY OF BACK PAY
The court raised sua sponte the issue of whether plain
tiffs’ prayer for back pay was barred in all instances by the
Eleventh Amendment. The parties have submitted
scholarly briefs on this issue and the court has been aided
by decisions that have come down since that time.
The court must first address the preliminary question of
whether any of the defendants are the “state” as con
templated by the Eleventh Amendment.
William C. Friday, President of Consolidated Universi
ty, John T. Caldwell, Chancellor of NCSU, and George
Hyatt, Jr., Director of NCAES, are all sued in their of
ficial capacities. The UNC Board of Governors and UNC
itself are sued as separate entities. Plaintiffs contend that
the Eleventh Amendment prohibition does not apply to
these defendants for they cannot be deemed officers or
agencies of the State of North Carolina. Plaintiffs note
that UNC and its Board of Governors are separate cor
porate bodies politic, capable of suing and being sued, and
are able to issue corporate bonds without liability by the
state. Nevertheless, the Board of Governors develops and
presents to the General Assembly on behalf of UNC a
single, unified re c o m m e n d e d budget. N.C.G.S.
§ 116-1 l(9)a(l 1). The recommended budget includes pro
visions for salaries, which presumably encompasses back
pay. Therefore, should the court award the plaintiffs back
pay, the funds available for satisfying the judgment must
necessarily come from the state treasury. UNC, its Board
of Governors and officers must be deemed to be agencies
of the State of North Carolina. Thonen v. Jenkins, 517
F.2d 3 (4th Cir. 1975).4
Assuming the defendants are agencies or agents of the
state, the court must address the issue of whether the
Eleventh Amendment bars recovery of back pay in
lawsuits under the statutes asserted by the plaintiffs.
4 The plaintiffs in T h o n e n brought their action in 1971 after passage
of Chapter 116 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
83
1. 42 U .S.C . § 1981. Back pay is not recoverable against
the state or state agencies under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, but is
recoverable against counties and their officers. Wade v.
M ississippi Cooperative Extension Service, 424 F. Supp.
1242 (N.D. Miss. 1976), on rem and, 528 F.2d 508 (5th Cir.
1976).
2. 42 U .S.C . § 1983. Back pay is not recoverable against
the state, its agencies or its officers in their official
capacities. Edelm an v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 675-77
(1974).
3. Title VI. Back pay is not recoverable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d. Gilliam v. City o f Omaha, 388 F. Supp. 842, 847
(D. Neb. 1975), citing Edelm an, supra, a f f ’d on other
grounds, 524 F.2d. 1013 (8th Cir. 1975).
4. Title VII. Back pay is recoverable from the state
treasury in Title VII actions, notwithstanding the Eleventh
Amendment. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976).
5. North Carolina counties and their officers in their of
ficial capacities do not enjoy the protections of the
Eleventh Amendment. A tk in s v. City o f Charlotte, 296 F.
Supp. 1068 (W.D.N.C. 1969); see Edelm an, supra.
UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM
Defendants asserted in their third-party complaint filed
April 21, 1972 that the third-party defendants (Secretary
of USDA and Administrator of the Federal Extension
Service) are ultimately liable for any monetary award as
sessed against the defendants and that the third-party de
fendants have applied various statutes and regulations to
the defendants in a manner violating the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The third-party
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third-party com
plaint on June 22, 1972. The court afterward realigned the
third-party defendants as plaintiffs on July 21, 1972. The
court specified in the realignment order that “[a]ll claims
and requests for relief set forth in the Third-Party Com
plaint are hereby preserved as . . . counterclaims.” The
United States’ motion to dismiss the third-party com
plaint, is now treated as a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim.
84
1. Plaintiffs first pose a series of objections in their mo
tion to dismiss dealing with defendants’ compliance with
Rule 14, F.R.Civ.P, - impleader (third-party practice).
Because the court now treats the third-party complaint as
a counterclaim, however, plaintiffs’ objections regarding
compliance with Rule 14 are irrelevant.
2. Defendants allege in their counterclaim that ap
plicable federal statutes and regulations merely require
non-discrimination and do not compel affirmative-action
responses to a past history of racial discrimination. Defen
dants contend, however, the plaintiffs are imposing an af
firmative action program upon the defendants and not
upon any other state agency in the country. This practice,
defendants argue, violates the equal protection clause.
Plaintiffs state in their motion to dismiss that a letter from
the EEOC office to the Director of NCAES shows that
defendants’ allegations are erroneous in that the plaintiffs
have merely required the defendants to take actions ap
proved by courts in other contexts.
Plaintiffs’ argument is without merit for several
reasons. First, the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the
counterclaim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) merely tests the
sufficiency of the allegations within the counterclaim,
without reference to facts appearing outside of the
pleadings. The court cannot, therefore, consider the con
tents of the EEOC letter to the defendants without treating
the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56,
and then only after appropriate notice to the defendants.
No notice has been given to the defendants that the plain
tiffs are treating the motion as one for summary judg
ment. Secondly, a review of the letter indicates that the
plaintiffs seek to impose a quota system on the defendants
in that the plaintiffs have required that fifty per cent of all
position vacancies are to be filled with minority groups un
til the racial composition of the NCAES reflects the racial
composition in the community. Thirdly, plaintiffs’ argu
ment that the affirmative action plan merely tracks a
85
program approved by a court in another context does not
address defendants’ allegations that the plan is imposed in
contravention of the equal protection clause.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the counter
claim is denied.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY
The plaintiffs move to reopen discovery on the basis
that the racial composition for the NCAES and various
employment practices may have changed over the years
since the close of discovery. The defendants object only on
the basis that the proper scope of discovery cannot be
ascertained until the court has ruled on the class certifica
tion motions, the motion to amend the original complaint
to include Title VII, the back pay issue, and the motion to
dismiss the counterclaim. Since the court has now ruled
upon all outstanding matters, the permissible scope of
discovery is clearer. Moreover, the court could benefit
from a factual appraisal of the current racial balance and
employment practices within the NCAES. The data would
directly affect the need, mode and scope of any judicial
decree that may be rendered in the case. The parties are
allowed to and including February 1, 1980 within which to
complete discovery.
SO ORDERED.
F. T. D upree, J r.
U nited States D istrict J udge
October 9, 1979.
86
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
NORTH CAROTINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
C ivil No. 2879
P. E. Bazemore, et a l ., plaintiffs
vs.
W illiam C. F riday, et a l .,
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
This action came before the court for hearing on various
pending motions on July 17, 1981, and it is on the basis of
the arguments of counsel and the memoranda of record
that the court makes the following rulings.
On November 5, 1979, plaintiffs moved the court to
reconsider its order of October 9, 1979 which denied the
motion for certification of a plaintiff and defendant class
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
After careful review of the additional filings in support of
plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider and consideration of the
arguments presented, the court concludes that the decision
to deny class certification was correct and in accordance
with the law in this circuit. See H ill v. Western Electric
Com pany, Inc., 596 F.2d 99 (4th Cir. 1979); see also
A bron v. Black & Decker, Inc .,_F.2d__ _ No. 79-1871
(4th Cir., decided July 17, 1981). Accordingly, the motion
to reconsider and certify a class is denied for the reasons
set forth in the court’s order of October 9, 1979.
Good cause having been shown, the motion of plaintiff-
intervenors to set aside the default entered against them on
November 6, 1979, is allowed. Rule 55(c), F.R.Civ.P.
87
The defendants’ motion for a protective order, filed on
January 8, 1980, is denied. However, the court would en
courage the parties to mutually agree to reasonable limita
tions on the scope of discovery in order to expedite the
disposition of this case.
Although it appears to the court that the discovery
sought by defendants’ motion to compel, filed February
14, 1980, has been or is being provided by plaintiffs, the
motion is allowed and plaintiffs are directed to continue
their efforts to complete their answers to defendants’ inter
rogatories.
SO ORDERED.
F. T. D upree , J r .
U nited States D istrict J udge
July 29, 1981.
88
TRIAL TESTIMONY OF THOMAS BLALOCK (EXCERPTS)
[3811] * * * * *
Q. Dr. Blalock, there has been some testimony here
with respect to a decision in connection with the 4-H and
Homemakers Clubs in the so-called reasonable action or
reasonable effort. Do you recall that testimony when Dr.
Harwood was testifying? It involved an inquiry into the
cost of reasonable effort programs?
A. Oh, yes; I do. Yes.
Q. Are you familiar with that situation?
A. Yes.
Q. And the incidents that transpired at that time?
A. Yes. I recall that.
Q. If you would, would you relate to the court your
recollection of the problems?
A. The situation that led to that particular discussion
related to the 1974 Civil Rights initiative. All reasonable
effort, as has been defined by the Department of Agri
culture, in terms of organizing and maintaining clubs in
biracial communities at one time involved knocking on
doors and getting a signed affirmation from individ
uals—either youth or adults in that community —that they
had been contacted and did not wish to participate.
They later modified that to simply include that you had
to knock on doors and invite people to [3812] participate.
We were debating at that time whether we ought to take
that step in North Carolina as one further step of trying to
comply.
At that time, Dr. Stormer was on our staff and had been
in Texas at the time the Texas Extension Service had im
plemented the Affirmative Action Program in Texas that
included the all reasonable effort. That did include the
knocking on doors in individual communities.
And Dr. Stormer estimated for us the magnitude of the
expense in taking that one step in all reasonable effort. It
was my judgment, and based on conversations with Dr.
89
Stormer and other state people who had been through
that, that in terms of what this achieves in relation to the
cost, it is not very great; that it is not a very cost-effective
step.
And so I had concluded that we would not take that step
because of the limited resources we had. At that time we
were dealing with some rather tough budget problems.
That did not seem to me to be the highest priority use of
staff resources to have them knocking on individual doors
checking with individual youngsters or adults in that com
munity.
And so we made an inquiry to your office as to the im
pact of this and what we ought to do on the suit. But I had
already made the decision that I was not going [3813]to do
that, regardless of what your advice was, because of the
cost. I did not feel it was a cost-effective thing.
The Court: Were you trying to get him to knock on
doors, and he wouldn’t do it?
The Witness: No, sir; he did not, fortunately. But I
had made the decision before his response came back.
By Mr. Manning, Sr.:
Q. As a manner of fact, the cost factor had been
brought out in a meeting which I attended two years
before; Had it not?
A. Yes; It had. Yes.
Q. And that was what was discussed?
A. Yes.
The Court: You say even if he had recommended it —
The Witness: (Interposing) He had said —I did not
ask him whether we should do this or not. I asked him the
impact of this. If we did something of this sort, is this go
ing to incriminate us? Is this going to give us problems if
we go into court?
And we have kept a dialogue with him of trying to not
inadvertently stumble into something that we didn’t intend
to do. So I did not ask him. I made up my [3814] mind that
even if he said, “I see no problem as an impact on your
suit,” I was not going to take that step at this time.
90
[3907] * * * * *
Q. Dr. Blalock, based upon your attendance at that
meeting, did it cause you to raise questions related to the
salaries of black employees and female employees in the
North Carolina Extension Service?
A. Of black and female employees?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. The EEO Program deals specifically with
those two categories of employees, and so that would have
been our concern.
Q. All right. And that memoranda specifically in
dicates that black males and females were your con
cern—or women were your concern; is that not true?
A. I would have to reread the memorandum to be sure
of that. It’s been a long time. May I?
Q. Yes.
[3908] (Witness peruses document.)
A. Yes. My notes would indicate that I concluded that
we had a concern in this area and indicated the reasons
why differences in salaries existed. The competitive
market being one of the factors-that there was a com
petitive market for—
Q. (Interposing) Not to interrupt you, but what
paragraph are you reading from?
A. I’m reading from item eight on the third page.
Q. Would you read the entire item, please?
A. Yes.
“. . . Believe you’d agree our salaries for women and
nonwhite men on average are lower —our figures would
verify —due to several factors.”
The first point:
“. . . The competitive market. This is not acceptable as
a reason though.”
And I do not agree with that.
Q. Even though you wrote it?
A. I do not agree with the fact that it is not accepted.
Q. But that was your view at the time?
91
A. That the competitive market is a factor in [3909]
causing differences in salaries; Yes.
Q. But you said it is not an acceptable reason?
A. They had indicated in Washington that that was
not an acceptable reason.
The Court: It would be helpful if you would explain to
me the circumstances. What did this memorandum em
body? Did it purport to show what you thought about
something, or were you reporting on some meeting you at
tended, or just what was it?
The Witness: I was reporting on a meeting I attended,
the information I had gained out of that meeting, what it
appeared we were going to have to do in the future, and
some needs that I felt we had to —some areas that we need
ed to do something about in North Carolina.
The Court: I think his question is, when you write say
ing “This is not acceptable as a reason though,” Did you
mean it was not acceptable to the authorities who were in
charge of implementing the EEO Act or not acceptable as
a reason to you personally?
That was your question?
Mr. Padgett: Yes.
The Witness: That was my —that’s what —and
remember these are notes. This is not a published presen
tation, but something that I used to speak from. [3910]
The statement was intended to convey that the officials in
Washington did not accept the competitive market as a
justification for any differences in salaries that might ex
ist. My explanation was that I do not agree with that con
clusion because it is an economic reality that we deal with
every day and only seem to have problems when it deals
with either race or sex of accepting that it isn’t a factor.
The second point under there is “tradition.” Again, that
salaries for women and blacks traditionally have been
lower; and third, that it was “less county support for non
white positions,” which again was a traditional thing.
92
By Mr. Padgett:
Q. When you were talking about tradition, you were
talking about in the State of North Carolina at that time?
A. No, sir, I was talking about nationally.
Q. That would include the State of North Carolina?
A. Of course.
Q. Directing your attention further in your memoran
da to paragraph 17 and 18 —
A. (Interposing) Yes.
Q. —Have you had an opportunity to review
paragraphs 17 and 18?
[3911] A. Yes; I have.
Q. Would you read paragraph 17, please?
A. Paragraph 17 says:
“. . . majority are $500-$700 range. County should
probably do $300-$400 also —for total of $800-$ 1,100.”
Q. Was that your calculation as to the average dif
ference in salaries of black males and females, or women?
A. This was a figure that I had concluded that we
ought to do to make the adjustments in salaries that we
needed to make at that time in response to the changing
salary structures of our entry level salaries and in response
to what we knew we were going to have to do as a result of
the EEO Act.
Q. And as it related to incumbent employees?
A. Pardon me?
Q. As it related to incumbent employees?
A. Incumbent?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Those figures relate that of the $800 to $1,100 that
only $300 to $400 of it would be accountable to the coun
ties; Is that correct?
A. Yes.
93
[3912] Q. And that $500 to $700 would b e -th e State
would be accountable for?
A. Yes.
Q. Or that would be the difference?
A. Yes.
Q. And was “18” your specific recommendation?
A. Beg your pardon?
Q. And what was “18”? Would you read “18” for us?
A. Eighteen says:
“. . . No one gets less than $500.”
We had concurred that we would do an across the
board —at least $500 —on those employees affected. It
says:
“. . . I believe no one will get less than $200 July,
assuming the 5 percent increase.”
At this stage —and I’m assuming this must have been
done in the spring while the General Assembly was still in
session and had not taken final action on salary in
creases—we had anticipated that no one would get less
than a $200 total increase at that time.
Q. Was this actually, in fact, carried out?
A. Number 18?
Q. Number 18.
A. I cannot recall. I really can’t. I do not remember
what happened that year.
[3913] Q. Do you recall if the State did, in fact, get the
counties to contribute $300 to $400?
A. I would say in the majority of the cases, no.
Q. The majority of the cases, no?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ask the counties to contribute?
A. Yes. In every case, we asked the counties.
Q. You asked them to contribute and they didn’t?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you follow up on it after you initially asked
them?
A. What do you mean by “follow' up”?
94
Q. I mean utilize the available leverage or resources
that the State had to encourage counties to take an action
that the Extension Service thinks is appropriate.
Mr. Manning, Sr.: Objection to the word “leverage.” I
don’t know what you mean. Like the Federal Government
holding up funds? Objection, if your honor pleases, to the
form of the question.
The Court: Overruled. I’ll let him say what he did.
The Witness: We have no leverage. Ours is totally per
suasion, and we made a —I would say —concerted effort
by persuasion. This was not something we [3914] sent
them in a memorandum and asked them to respond to. We
visited personally with the counties and explained to them
what was being done and what their obligations were and
asked for their contribution. We were successful in some;
we were not successful in others.
TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DONALD STORMER (EXCERPTS)
These other ones are similar. And again, I don’t have
the newspapers on all of these. This one says Whiteville,
October 1981. There are just numerous —I doubt if there is
a 4-H Club ever organized in the State of North Carolina
that there isn’t some public notification.
Q. What is the policy of the State 4-H and the North
Carolina Agricultural Extension Service on notice with
respect to race?
A. It is our policy that the organization of a unit will
get public notification. These are handbills that are posted
in schools and other places where kids frequent to let it be
known that there is a club or group [4980] being organ
ized; and that we would solicit their participation.
95
[4986] * * * * *
A. Yes. The state membership has remained relatively
stable during that period time.
Q. At 95,453 in 1980?
A. Yes —beginning with 95,589 in 1974.
Q. Now, directing your attention to number 227 —
defendants’ 227 —would you explain that, please, sir, to
the Court?
A. Yes. This is a racial breakdown for volunteers and
4-H members for the years ’72, ’76 and ’80. I call your at
tention first to the volunteers. In 1972 there were 2,665
black volunteers. In 1980, there were 4,022. While the
percentage of our total volunteers who were [4987] black
decreased from 31 percent in ’72 to 27 percent in 1980, the
actual numbers increased greatly.
And I think you will see as you go to the white side of
this table that we had a rather dramatic increase in the
number of white volunteers as well, going from 5,988 in
1972 to 11,122 in 1980. And of course —
Q. (interposing) Now, also —excuse me. Go ahead.
A. Well, the importance of this I think you can see.
We in our mission statement say 4-H is operated by
volunteers. We label it as a key result area in our manage
ment matrix. And it is an area where we feel we have to
perform to have a successful program.
Q. And in the growth total, you have moved from
8,600 to 15,144?
A. That is correct.
Q. Now, under 4-H membership, you have given your
total growth there based on a racial breakdown?
A. Yes. In 1972 there were 22,174 black youngsters in
the 4-H program. In 1980 there were 30,243, maintaining
32 percent of the membership. Conversely, in 1972, 46,313
were white; and in 1980, 64,338. You can see the growth of
the program from ’72 to ’80.
Q. Just based on your experience, do you have any or
can you give the Court any input as to why the black [4988]
96
leadership has dropped down; and yet the number
o f—other than between 76 and ’80, the black membership
has increased and increased really from 72 to 1980 by
some 8,000 members?
A. Well, in actuality the numbers of black volunteers
have increased. But the whites have increased at a faster
rate, I think is the explanation there. You can see we
almost doubled the corps of volunteers during that period.
We did not double in membership.
And that has been our press —has been for volunteers.
We feel that if we can get the volunteers, the children are
there to be served.
Q. In both instances, what does the ratio of percent
age of black leaders and members bear as to the ratio of
population of the state?
A. Well, we are well above the State’s population of
about 22 percent, I believe—27 percent for volunteers and
32 percent for 4-H members at the present time.
[4992] * * * * *
Q. Now, Dr. Stormer, were you involved in the deci
sion that we have heard so much about as to not getting
into the knock on door policies?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Would you mind explaining your in
volvement to the Court in connection with that matter?
A. I guess I triggered that series of events with a memo
that I wrote in 1977. I want to be candid with the Court in
this case. I have a strong personal commitment to civil
rights. And in the process of examining those initiatives, I
got the wrong copy.
Another confession, I guess, is in order. There are three
drafts of those 1974 initiatives. And when I sent my
secretary to the file, I got “a draft” [4993] that was not “the
draft” or the final draft. And it said something different
than the final draft.
97
I wrote the memo explaining the reasonable effort rule
to district chairmen and asked that the documentation be
kept in those cases where it was used. Betsy Meldau, one
of our district chairmen, quickly noted the discrepancy
between my memo and those 1974 initiatives and called it
to our attention.
And that started the sequence of discussions that finally
wound up in the Administrative Council in terms of the
Reasonable Effort Rule —or all reasonable effort.
The Court: Maybe he and Dr. Black better check be
hind their secretaries.
By Mr. Manning, Sr.:
Q. And what happened? Just briefly relate it. We have
been into it before. But just briefly relate the sequence of
events.
A. Well, in the discussion, I think we were all in
terested in being good citizens and doing everything that
we thought was morally right to bring about as much in
tegration as possible in our programs. And we had a
number of discussions in terms of whether we should or
should not adopt the Reasonable Effort Rule.
And we finally took it to the Administrative [4994]
Council for discussion. As you have heard before, there
was unanimity among the Council that we would go ahead
with the Reasonable Effort Rule based on some consulta
tion. Based on that and some other further discussions
that we had as program leaders, we rescinded that action
and did not go with Reasonable Effort.
Now, my reasoning for not going with it was different
than some others, as I have heard testimony being given
here.
Q. What was your reasoning?
A. I guesss there are two reasons, the first one being
that this case was apparently coming to a close. We had
the 1974 initiatives in the field.
98
Q. I believe the judge would feel better if you would
say it was coming to trial, because at this point he doesn’t
think it is ever coming to a close.
A. There was some action in this particular case.
The Court: Mr. Manning, you have expressed the
Court’s feelings with customary exactitude.
Mr. Manning, Sr.: Your pain caught me all the way
out here, your honor. That is why I felt compelled to say
that.
By Mr. Manning, Sr.:
Q. All right, sir?
A. We already had the 1974 initiatives in the [4995]
field with the pending activity in this case. If we went to
the field with the All Reasonable Effort provision and
then the Court would decide something else, we could
have had three different sets of initiatives in the field
within a period of approximately five years.
And I felt that would be very confusing because, you
know, we don’t just go to the field and train our staff. If
we start working in an area like this, we go to our Ad
visory Committees. We talk it through with them. We
believe that the only way you get commitment is through
involvement; and that the people would have to act and
react to these things and help us accomplish them.
And to go out and do that three times within five years
with something different would not be very helpful to our
cause.
Q. What was your other reason?
A. Well, the second reason was it is just not good
management to ask our agents to go knock on doors. If
you are going to work through others, then you do it that
way. And we had requested that our agents function more
as managers and quit operating. And this would be a re
quest to have them operate again.
Q. What would be the effect of taking an agent’s time
to have the agent knock on doors in the concept of your
management of your program?
99
[4996] A. Well, you will have a net reduction in pro
gram. You have to have. If you divert management time to
operating time, you are using your resources in a different
way. And it would have to influence the kind of outreach
that an agent could make.
Q. If you take the agent’s time in this specific area to
do this specific function, what would be its effect on his
other duties that you have already enumerated?
A. Well, someplace —he would have to give up
something from management to go operate. And we
would have a reduction in program quality or in quantity.
It would have to happen that way.
Q. Now, in connection with the actual efforts to mix
two clubs in a community —either white or black —would
you give the court your experience as to the basic forma
tion of community clubs and what experience, if any, you
had, say, in Texas in this area, which was operating under
a court order?
A. Well, that strategy is basically a loser from my ex
perience. People who have a club —
[5028] * * * * *
A. This is paragraph four of this memorandum. It
says,
“The single most vulnerable area in assessing the prog
ress of State 4-H affirmative action programs is the high
number of 4-H clubs and 4-H special groups in mixed
communities which have youth of only one racial-ethnic
group. Approximately one-half of the states each have
more than 500 such units.”
Q. Now, utilizing that information, did you make a
calculation to compare North Carolina with that informa
tion?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you prepare an exhibit to that effect?
A. I did.
100
Q. Is that exhibit number 229?
A. Yes.
Mr. Manning, Sr.: At this time, in the interest of hav
ing him explain it with the Court having a copy, I would
like to offer in evidence defendants’ exhibit 229.
(Defendants’ Exhibit 229 was marked for identification
and received in evidence.)
[5029] By Mr. Manning, Sr.:
Q. Now, if you would, would you go through the
processes that you used, using 229 as a basis, how you ar
rived at your comparison?
A. Using 500 as the median number of units —you will
recall a median is a middle number different from a
mean —I took an array of the states’ enrollments for that
year, 1978, and found the median figure in that array
which was Minnesota with an enrollment of 67,518.
North Carolina’s enrollment in 1978 was 97,045. With
these data, you can proportion what you might expect in
North Carolina using that kind of a computation. You
simply set up a proportion that 67,518 is to 500 as 97,045 is
to “x” and cross-multiply.
The expected number of such units in North Carolina,
proportioned on the basis of enrollment, would be 719.
The actual number in 1978 —
Q. (interposing) Is that 718 or 719?
A. 718. The actual number was 920. Now, that com
putation does not account for race, only for total numbers
of members.
Take another tack with it. North Carolina’s 4-H pro
gram ranks seventh in the nation in terms of black youth
participating. That is better than 42 other states. So we
simply take the 25th, with 500, and 42 [5030] which is our
position with respect to other states in terms of blacks, and
we can proportion again. We would come up with an ex
pectation of 840 such units, based on participation by
race.
101
Q. Rather than the 920 just based on the number of
units?
A. 920 was the actual number of such units that we
had in 1978.
In the first case, we had 202 more units than would be
expected on the basis of membership alone. On the basis
of race, we had 80 more units than would be expected
based on racial composition. Those differences can pro
bably be attributed to affirmative action programs. My
feeling is that that is rather a high cost in terms of achiev
ing some —if you took an average of those two, it is
something like 140 units.
This would support, I think, Dr. Blalock’s testimony
that this is not cost effective.
Q. Now, while we are talking about affirmative action
recommendations, are you familiar with the first affir
mative action recommendation that came out from the
United States Department of Agriculture?
A. Yes.
Q. And what did that call for to be done?
A. The first statement in the guidelines, “All [5031]
Reasonable Efforts,” was nothing more than a phrase in
the regulations. It was later defined by saying that in a
targeted area of a 4-H Club, we had to get a signed af
fidavit from all of the minorities saying that they did not
wish to participate in our program. That was the first
definition of “all reasonable efforts.”
Q. That was a definition and not a regulation, was it
not?
A. Well, it was a regulation. That was what we had to
do.
Mr. Craige: Point of Clarification. What point in time
are we talking about, and is there any documentation of
Mr. Stormer’s statement?
The Witness: We are talking January 1973. I think I
can get that close for the first one. I don’t have a record of
it at the moment.
102
By Mr. Manning, Sr.:
Q. Were you involved in it?
A. Yes, sir, deeply.
Q. That particular method of going out was a recom
mendation, was it not, not a regulation?
A. No, sir.
Q. It was a regulation?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was it retracted?
[5032] A. Yes.
Q. After that, the next recommendations came in the
form of what?
A. A three-step process defining and regulating “all
reasonable efforts.”
Q. Is that the document, “Strengthening 4-H Pro
grams”?
A. It came out earlier than this document, I believe,
but this is a document explaining “all reasonable efforts.”
This one is dated 1979.
The redefinition came during the calendar year of 1973,
I believe, after a protest from ECOP, the Extension Com
mittee on Organization and Policy, in terms of the
unreasonableness of “all reasonable effort.”
Q. Now, it is your opinion based on the decision, of
the action in North Carolina, that it was not economically
feasible from a management point of view?
A. It is not cost effective.
Q. And you supported that decision then, and do you
still now support it?
A. I do.
103
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 30
Number and percent of NCCES Homemaker Clubs by
racial composition of the club and number of members by
race
All White All Non-White Integrated
Clubs Clubs Clubs Clubs
1972 1,378 (73.8%)
1971 1,449 (73.7%)
1968 1,562 (73.0%)
1966 1,022 (60.8%)
466 (25%)
491 (25%)
569 (26.5%)
658 (39.2%)
22 (1.2% )
26 (1.3%)
10 ( .5%)
None listed (0%)
Members White Non-White
1972
1971
1968
1966
24,115 (77.8%)
25,313 (77.2%)
28,023 (75.6%)
20,641 (54.5%)
6,869 (22.2%)
7,485 (22.8%)
9,063 (24.4%)
17,227 (45.5%)
Sources: 1) Exhibit 18 of Defendants’ Answers to Plain
tiffs’ first interrogatories of February 4, 1972, interroga
tory Number 30, and exhibit Number 1 to the Deposition
of Eloise Cofer. A copy of the exhibit 18 is attached. 2)
List of North Carolina Homemaker Clubs for 1972 by
county showing name of club, total membership, white
members and non-white members, produced pursuant to
Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Rule 34 Request for Production of
Documents, of June 8, 1972, Number 2s, and pursuant to
Plaintiff-Intervenor’s December 21, 1972 —Rule for Pro
duction of Documents No. 13.
104
N.C.C.E.S. HOMEMAKER CLUBS
Number and Percent of Members in
One Race and Multi-race Clubs
Members in All
White Clubs
Members in All
Non-White Clubs
Members in
Multi-race Clubs
1972 23,925 (77.2%) 6,694 (21.6%) 365 (1.2%)
1971 24,980 (76.2%) 7,288 (22.2%) 530 (1.6%)
1968 27,913 (75.3%) 8,995 (24.2%) 178 ( .5%)
1966 20,641 (54.5%) 17,227 (45.5%) 0 (0%)
Source: 1) Exhibit 18 of Defendants’ answers to Plain
tiffs’ first interrogatories of February 4, 1972, interroga
tory No. 30, and exhibit No. 1 to the Deposition of Eloise
Cofer. 2) List of North Carolina Homemakers clubs for
1972 by county showing name of club, total membership,
white membership and non-white members, produced pur
suant to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Rule 34 request for produc
tion of documents of June 8, 1972, Number 2s, and pur
suant to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s Rule 34 request for produc
tion of documents of December 21, 1972, No. 13.
EXTENSION HOMEMAKER CLUBS
1971
County
Clubs
All
White
Clubs
All
Non-
White
Clubs
Inte
grated
Members
All
White
Members
All
Non-
White White
Members
Inte
grated
Non-
White
Alamance 23 7 419 171
Alexander 9 175
Alleghany 9 1 150 24
Anson 10 10 122 120
Ashe 7 135
Avery 10 250
Beaufort 11 4 149 35
Bertie 10 9 104 71
Bladen 18 9 309 141
105
Clubs
All
County White
Clubs
All
Non-
White
Clubs
Inte
grated
Members
All
White
Members
All
Non-
White White
Members
Inte
grated
Non-
White
Brunswick 4 80
Buncombe 32 1 629 17 1
Burke 14 225
Cabarrus 24 411
Caldwell 15 216
Camden 4 3 65 31
Carteret 10 1 179 21
Caswell 16 9 252 125
Catawba 29 473
Chatham 13 11 227 149
Cherokee 7 1 96 10
Chowan 13 4 200 50
Clay 7 70
Cleveland 18 14 282 237
Columbus 17 5 271 54
Craven 11 5 180 65
Cumberland 14 9 1 263 112 5 1
Currituck 10 2 153 54
Dare 8 150
Davidson 20 380
Davie 12 1 182 14
Duplin 15 8 227 100
Durham 20 5 337 61
Edgecombe 13 7 287 200
Forsyth 31 10 621 135
Franklin 8 11 95 140
Gaston 30 1 1 732 11 14 2
Gates 9 10 147 162
Graham 5 1 80 1 19
Granville 6 11 81 113
Greene 6 6 104 77
Guilford 23 11 414 126
Halifax 13 11 220 167
Harnett 5 15 65 182 47
H a y w o o d 24 1 513 17
H e n d e r s o n 23 460
Hertford 12 15 158 179
Hoke 9 4 172 46
106
County
Clubs
All
White
Hyde 8
Iredell 22
Jackson 7
Johnston 17
Jones 8
Lee 15
Lenoir 15
Lincoln 18
McDowell 16
Macon 20
Madison 9
Martin 16
Mecklen
burg 25
Mitchell 12
Mont
gomery 10
Moore 16
Nash 13
New
Hanover 13
Northamp
ton 12
Onslow 17
Orange 14
Pamlico 10
Pasquotank 14
Pender 13
Perquimans 9
Person 8
Pitt 18
Polk 7
Randolph 14
Richmond 12
Robeson 15
Rocking
ham 25
Rowan 30
Clubs
All
Non-
White
Clubs
Inte
grated
Members
All
White
1 100
7 552
132
6 300
5 79
1 331
12 202
2 241
284
449
150
7 297
14 649
181
1 135
5 238
12 166
10 235
7 178
222
15 210
127
7 204
3 198
10 110
7 120
10 287
1 105
6 223
4 176
26 1 289
11 340
11 1 761
Members
Members Inte-
All grated
Non- Non-
White White White
16
102
100
41
15
155
20
105
271
148
15
53
164
148
106
224
97
37
189
153
171
10
94
49
487 1 35
118
227 90 33
107
Clubs
Clubs
All Clubs Members
Members
All
Members
inte
grated
All Non- Inte All Non- Non-
County White White grated White White White White
Rutherford 20 300
Sampson 19 9 301 91
Sootland 14 220
Stanly 19 3 325 33
Stokes 17 347
Surry 22 418
Swain
Transyl-
11 190
vania 12 200
Tyrrell 13 155
Union 11 9 142 96
Vance 10 12 123 160
Wake 29 11 463 147
Warren 12 13 138 193
Washington 11 1 178 15
Watauga 12 201
Wayne 15 11 249 119
Wilkes 21 420
Wilson 25 5 503 101
Yadkin 13 196
Y ancey
Cherokee
8 130
Reserva-
tion 5
1,449 491 26 24,980 7,288
Grand
Total 1,966 32,798
EXTENSION HOMEMAKER CLUBS
December 18, 1968
Ail While Non-White Integrated
Non-
Western Clubs Members Clubs Members Clubs White White
Avery 11 265
Buncombe 35 834 1 15 1
Burke 13 225
108
Western
All White Non-White
Clubs Members Clubs Members
Cherokee 10 103 1 12
Clay 8 120
Graham 5 85 1 25
Haywood 25 518 1 23
Henderson 22 450
Jackson 14 240
Macon 18 430
Madison 9 150
Mitchell 9 150
McDowell 16 272
Polk 7 110 1 10
Rutherford 20 300 1 15
Swain 12 226
Transyl-
vania 12 216
Yancey 7 120
Northwestern
Alamance 27 433 9 164
Alexander 11 225
Alleghany 10 200
Ashe 10 165
Caldwell 15 240
Caswell 15 226 11 150
Chatham 16 214 13 226
Davidson 23 380
Davie 15 275 1 25
Forsyth 32 760 11 160
Guilford 24 449 12 153
Randolph 17 300 9 150
Rocking-
ham 34 596 11 220
Stokes 16 340
Surry 26 475
Watauga 12 185
Wilkes 23 500
Yadkin 14 300
Southwestern
Anson 13 170 13 145
Cabarrus 23 405
Integrated_______
Non-
Clubs White White
1 16 3
2 41 2
1 19 1
109
All White Non-White Integrated__
Non-
Western Clubs Members Clubs Members Clubs White White
Catawba 27 500
Cleveland 16 324 14 279
Gaston 25 510
Hoke 11 190 2 21
Iredell 22 532 9 118
Lee 15 265 1 20
Lincoln
Mecklen-
21 275
burg
Mont-
30 655 13 239
gomery 11 210
Moore 17 240 8 100
Richmond 17 233 8 83
Rowan 33 845 12 255
Sootland 13 225
Stanly 19 325 1 21
Union 12 185 10 135
Southeastern
Bladen 19 328 7 115
Brunswick 6 100
Cartaret 9 176 2 34
Columbus 17 278 8 112
Craven 11 136 9 57
Cumberland 16 282 11 200
Duplin 19 284 10 122
Greene 11 213 6 100
Jones 10 95 6 50
Lenoir
New
13 170 12 132
Hanover 12 264 9 118
Onslow 15 262
Pamlico 13 183
Pender 11 153 8 260
Robeson 17 210 33 540
Sampson 22 375 11 152
Wayne 19 323 14 169
East Central
Beaufort 13 175 6 100
Durham 20 386 5 191
110
All While___ Non-White__ ____ Integrated________
Non-
Western Clubs Members Clubs Members Clubs White White
Edgecombe 15 355 8 285
Franklin 11 152 12 150
Granville 9 114 10 100
Harnett 19 300 7 88
Johnston 19 355 7 130
Martin 14 254 9 159
Nash 13 221 11 192
Orange 15 245 14 226
Person 9 200 13 222
Pitt 20 340 12 190
Vance 11 166 11 162
Wake 30 568 12 198
Warren 14 182 14 185
Wilson 24 500 7 157
Northeastern
Bertie 13 225 18 303
Camden 6 87 3 54
Chowan 13 204 9 98
Currituck 13 202 1 36
Dare 1 115 1 10
Gates 10 135 11 168
Halifax 14 350 12 200
Hertford 13 178 16 192
Hyde 8 145 1 48
Northamp-
ton 12 177 12 105
Pasquotank 12 221 8 137
Perquimans 9 106
Tyrrell 13 80
Washington 11 177
I ll
1966
EAST CENTRAL DISTRICT
Negro White
No. No.
County Clubs Members Clubs Members
Beaufort 12 384 20 375
Durham 7 251 17 410
Edgecombe 13 365 17 400
Franklin 16 540 19 300
Granville 15 529 13 206
Harnett 10 150 20 365
Johnston 9 218 27 550
Martin 8 300 15 258
Nash 12 277 33 594
Orange 12 301 16 385
Person 13 405 10 275
Pitt 18 370 21 457
Vance 14 441 16 305
Wake 23 520 33 645
Warren 21 386 17 244
Wilson 12 255 24 500
215 5,692 318 6,269
NORTHEASTERN DISTRICT
Bertie 15 249 15 238
Chowan 12 239 15 181
Gates 13 235 12 137
Halifax 15 665 17 325
Hertford 16 480 14 230
Northampton 12 325 14 207
Pasquotank 8 118 12 290
Perquimans 10 379 10 175
101 2,690 109 1,783
112
NORTHWESTERN DISTRICT
County
Negro White
No.
Clubs Members
No.
Clubs Members
Alamance 6 216 21 422
Caswell 14 385 18 310
Chatham 14 400 20 470
Forsyth 12 385 33 875
Guilford 15 496 35 798
Randolph 14 385 18 375
Rockingham 12 302 32 620
87 2,569 177 3,870
SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT
Bladen 16 550 21 425
Columbus 9 285 23 395
Craven 13 150 15 265
Cumberland 12 300 12 424
Duplin 10 200 29 450
Greene 9 200 14 318
Lenoir 12 176
New Hanover 11 201 16 389
Pender 9 280 18 280
Robeson 19 667 37 725
Sampson 15 395 25 575
Wayne 14 328 23 471
149 3,732 233 4,717
113
SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT
County
Negro White
No.
Clubs Members
No.
Clubs Members
Anson 15 369 14 210
Cleveland 13 397 18 417
Iredell 16 368 27 640
Mecklenburg 13 412 32 822
Moore 10 175 21 388
Richmond 13 300 22 325
Rowan 13 273 31 775
Union 13 250 20 425
• 106 2,544 185 4,002
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 69
EXTENSION PERSONNEL THAT HAVE BEEN
APPOINTED COUNTY EXTENSION
CHAIRMAN SINCE 1968
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
MAY 1981
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman Race
Year
Appointed
Chairman Applicants
Chowan 1981 Mike Williams
Zackie Harrell
Henry Riddick
Eugenia Ware Rutherford Same W 1981 Steven West
Dewey Hennessee
Fred May Pamlico Robeson W 1981 R. Ray Harris
Frank Green Rockingham Same w 1981 No other applicants
J. M. Pittman Avery Wake w 1980 Johnnie Hensley
1 All were Extension agents before becoming chairman. Some transferred from one County to another after becoming
chairman.
[Continued on following pages]
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
John Reeves Clay Cherokee
Alvin M. Stanford Cabarrus Priv. Industry
James R. Mabe McDowell Same
Donald Cobb Vance Granville
James Carey Ashe Cumberland
John W. Dunham Hertford Bladen
W.R. Jester Perquimans Tyrrell
Hover Royals Anson Same
James Stephenson Nash Vance
George Biddix Buncombe Rutherford
B.F. Spencer Cleveland Same
Year
Appointed
Race Chairman Applicants
W 1980 No other applicants
W 1980 William Triplett
w 1980 No other applicants
w 1980 Phyllis Stainback
Fred Belfield
w 1980 Robert F. Breland
Dana Tugman
w 1980 James Daughtry
James E. Wright
w 1980 Henry C. Riddick
B 1980 No other applicants
w 1980 Fred Belfield
Bryan Page
w 1980 J.B. Reeves
Reagon Ammons
w 1979 No other applicants
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
John Richardson Robeson Same
John Hall Lee Same
M.C. Small Jones Caswell
Bill Rogister Northampton Hertford
James D.
Stephenson
Vance Nash
C.E. Lewis New Hanover State Specialist
L.N. Whitt Caswell Same
Reginald Piland Pamlico Same
L.C. Cooper Warren Same
Dan Baucom Onslow Same
Year
Appointed
Race Chairman Applicants
W 1979 M.K. Dennis
W 1979 Fay T. Donnell
Clarence J. Cameron
w 1979 Charles Hammon
Fletcher Barber
w 1979 No other applicants
w 1979-80 Phyllis Stainback
Marshall Bowden
w 1979 Thomas Dail
Harvey Morris
James E. Warren
w 1979 Donna Pointer
w 1979-80 No other applicants
B 1979 George Koonce
Emily Ballinger
W 1979 Charles E. Hammond
Chase Padgett
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman Race
Year
Appointed
Chairman Applicants
M.K. Dennis Bladen Same W 1979 Harvey Morris
C.E. Hammond Moore Area Agent W 1979 Tom Colson
Paul Seabolt
Clarence Cameron
W.E. Mainous Davie Forsyth w 1979 Judge A. Pierce
Ronnie Thompson
James Ray Yancey Cherokee
Reservation
w 1979 Carlos Bickford
Johnny G. Hensley
J.D. Carroll Forsyth Guilford w 1979 W.E. Mainous
Talmadge Baker Randolph Moore w 1979 Dick Petersen
Drue Finette
Richard Freeman
Doug Young
Rodney Haines
Wesley Townsend Wayne Same w 1978 John H. Wynne
William Lamm
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
James H. Caudill Rowan Same
Lois Britt Duplin Same
Leroy James Pitt Same
O.R. Ammons Polk Burke
W.J. Griffin Bertie Perquimans
David Terrell Mitchell Same
Helen Dosier Alleghany Same
Frank Baker Granville Wayne
Gene Brewer Watauga Same
C.H. Jernigan Wilson Same
R.A. Hayes Greene Wilson
B.T. McNeill Cumberland Same
Year
Appointed
Race Chairman Applicants
W 1978 Rodney Haines
w 1978 Robert Swain
S.B. Wilson
B 1978 No other applicants
W 1977 Carlos P. Bickford
Judy M. Groff
W 1977 No other applicants
W 1977 No other applicants
W 1977 William Fowler
Walden M. Hearn
W 1977 I.W. Murfee
Dorothy Wilkinson
W 1977 No other applicants
W 1977 Frank Baker
W 1977 No other applicants
B 1976 No other applicants
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
David Choate Lincoln Same
V.B. Lynn Wake Same
M.C. Howell Union Same
R.M. Coleman Brunswick Same
C.D. Bunn Swain Same
Robert R. Hyatt Transylvania Buncombe
E.E. Bishop Cabarrus Same
Bruce Woodard Johnston Cumberland
Race
Year
Appointed
Chairman Applicants
W 1976 A.L. Smith
Howard Waynick
W 1976 No other applicants
w 1976 P.E. Bazemore
w 1976 Dan E. Baucom
M.K. Dennis
w 1976 Roger Hyatt
w 1976 Roger Hyatt
James H. Ray
Dennis Winters
Linda Best
w 1976-80 J.P. Bowles
w 1976 David Stanaland
Frank Baker
Harold Lloyd
Peter Westerbeck
H.F. Palmer
James Stephenson
Leroy James
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
Millis B. Wright
D.R. Burnette
Alamance
Buncombe
Robeson
4-H Specialist
J.F. Simpson Stanly Same
W.F. Walker Pender Same
Keeneth Vaughn Iredell Chatham
M.C. Griffin Beaufort Duplin
Race
W
W
w
w
w
w
Year
Appointed
Chairman Applicants_________
1975 Richard J. Freeman
1975-80 C.P. Bickford
J.D, Brooks
Nancy Stancil
Robert Hyatt
1975 Carol Baker
Ray Kiser
Fredrick J. Rivers
1975 Dan E. Baucom
J.G. Richardson
John Wynne
1975 D.O. Ivey
S.D. Little
Jack Smith, Jr.
1975 H.C. Riddick
Jack Cullipher
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
F.J. Rivers Person Tyrrell
F.S. Volvia Tyrrell Same
T.S. Godwin Wayne Same
L.L. Allen Martin Nash
G.D. McCullen Columbus Same
Race
Year
Appointed
Chairman Applicants
R.M. Pilch
W.M. Hearn
Gordon Sawyer
Steve Warrick
Gaylon Ambrose
Harvey Morris
W 1975 M.B. Wright
W 1975 No other applicants
w 1975-78 Frank Baker
William Lamm
Wesley Towsend
B.T. McNeill
w 1975 R.M.K. Edwards
C.J. Cameron
P.C. Bryant
w 1975 M.K. Dennis
Harold Lloyd
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
Donald Baker Pasquotank Columbus
H.L. Miller Burke McDowell
B.G. Westbrook Alexander Same
M.C. Small Caswell Currituck
E.J. Long Northampton Same
H.M. Ramseur Wilkes Alexander
W.C. Richardson Watauga Same
Race
Year
Appointed
Chairman Applicants
W 1974
Harvey Morris
John Spaulding
W.M. Hearn, Sr.
W 1974
J.R. Vaughn
Harvey Morris
Victor Lynn
R.M. Bowden
w 1974
Roger Hyatt
Robert Hyatt
Roger Hyatt
w 1974-79
Kenneth Patterson
w 1974-75 Fred Belfield
w 1974
Doug Eason
M.B. Wright
w 1974-77 Gene R. Brewer
Name1
Co. Before
Becoming
County____________ Chairman
Alvin Stanford Iredell Priv. Industry
Herman McCall Haywood Same
W.S. Lamm Lenoir Wayne
Year
Appointed
Race Chairman Applicants_________
Rodney Haines
Agnes A. Greene
Henry B. Hagwood
Harold Lloyd
C.D. Bunn
James W. Gentry
Patrick Guyer
W 1973-75 D.O. Ivey
H.M. Stoney
H.W. Myers
W 1973 H. Leslier Miller
w 1973 John H. Wynne
W.N. Pagton
G.E. McDaniel
R.L. Strough
Walter C. Johnson
T.S. Godwin
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
Walter Bowers Montgomery Same
Jack Barnes Stokes Same
Edwin Nolley Catawba Same
W.C. Holtzman Davidson Forsyth
Fred Rivers Tyrrell Industry
William
Shackelford Nash Same
Carl Hodges Durham Same
James Goff Harnett Same
Zackie Harrell Gates Same
Phil Haas Mecklenburg Same
Joe Perry Edgecombe Same
Race
W
W
w
w
w
w
B
W
W
W
W
Year
Appointed
Chairman Applicants
C.H. Jernigan
F.H. Baker
1973 No other applicants
1973 M.B. Wright
C.J. Cameron
1972
1972 Wade Johnson ^
Lathan Smith
1971-75
1971-80
1971
1971
1970 CM . Grimes
1970
1970
Co. Before Year
Becoming Appointed
Name1 County Chairman Race Chairman Applicants
Earl Wise Madison Same W 1970 No other applicants
Robert Rollins Macon Same W 1970 George Conrad
Walter Johnson Greene Same w 1970-77
Earle Wise
Talmadge Baker Moore Ashe w 1970-79
Aubrey Hardee Granville Same w 1970-77
Richard Bryant Perquimans Same w 1970-79
Jerry Purser Transylvania Durham w 1970-76
William Bledsoe Yancey Buncombe w 1970-79
Grover
Westmoreland Henderson Dairy Specialist w 1970 No other applicants
W.W. Avery Avery Same w 1970-80 Leslie Miller
Robert Wesson Montgomery Same w 1970-73
Woodie Richardson
Raymond
Thompson Chowan Same w 1970-81
Ed Simpson Craven Same w 1970
Name1 County
Co. Before
Becoming
Chairman
Samuel Young Yadkin Same
Edwin Yancey Pitt Johnston
Gordon Sawyer Camden Halifax
Enos Rogister Hertford Camden
William Corbin Alleghany West Virginia
Roger Murdock Alleghany Virginia Ext.
Ebert Pierce Orange Yadkin
John Stacy Union Catawba
Bruce Woodard Cumberland Wake
Henry Ramseur Alexander Industry
James Bunce Carterett Same
Laverne Hardage Warren Same
John Crawford Guilford Rutherford
Murray Goodwin Tyrrell Same
Year
Appointed
Race Chairman Applicants
W 1969
W 1969-78
w 1969
w 1969-79
w 3/69-8/69
w 8/69-76
w 1969
w 1969-76
w 1969-76
w 1968-74
w 1968
w 1968-79
w 1968
w 1968-71
No other applicants
No other applicants
No other applicants
to
o \
No other applicants
127
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 74
PROMOTIONS TO COUNTY CHAIRMAN
(1962-1981)
Year White Black Indian Total
1962-63 103 0 0 103
1964 1 0 0 1
1965 6 0 0 6
1966 5 0 0 5
1967 5 0 0 5
1968 6 0 0 6
1969 9 0 0 9
1970 16 0 0 16
1971 3 1 0 4
1972 2 0 0 2
1973 5 0 0 5
1974 7 0 0 7
1975 11 0 0 11
1976 8 1 0 9
1977 8 0 0 8
1978 3 1 0 4
1979 16 1 0 17
1980 10 1 0 11
May 1981 3 _0_ _0_ 3
TOTAL 227 5 0 232
Source: NCAES Personnel Directories; Personal Data
Cards; Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s
Letter of April 9, 1981.
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 98
ANALYSIS OF 1971 EFFORT TO EQUALIZE SALARIES OF BLACKS AND WHITES
1970 1971 Percent Change in Average Salary
County Professional Average Salary Average Salary Avg. Salary (1970-71) Difference (W-B)
Positions White Black White Black White Black 1970 1971
County Chairman 12,986 * 13,637 13,375 5.0 * * 262
Agricultural Extension
Agent 10,871 10,439 11,494 11,147 5.7 6.8 432 347
Associate AEA 9,876 8,956 10,240 9,558 3.7 6.7 920 682
Assistant AEA 8,796 8,671 9,126 8,505 3.8 -1 .9 125 621
Home Economics Agent 9,893 9,802 10,599 10,492 7.1 7.0 96 107
Associate HEA 8,553 8,195 9,146 9,040 6.9 10.3 358 106
Assistant HEA 7,852 7,796 8,240 8,113 4.9 4.1 56 127
Total 11,005 9,517 11,639 10,120 5.8 6.3 1,488 1,519
129
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 157 (EXCERPT)
[HANDWRITTEN MEMORANDUM]
* * * * *
7. Obviously one of the areas where we’ll be checked is
on salary —Easy to measure & at least see if there appears
to be any. Already had to supply salary figures on state
staffs for all personnel —identifying race, sex, tenure,
highest degree, etc.
8. Believe you’d agree our salaries for women & non
white men on average are lower —Our figures verify —Due
to several factors.
— The competitive market —This is not acceptable as
a reason though.
— Tradition —Not just in Ext.
— Less county support for non-white positions.
9. Don’t believe there’s any reason to spend lot of time
rationalizing why it has or has not been & whether it’s right
or wrong. This is past & we can’t do a whole lot about
it —We can & must for the future.
10. For county personnel we —AES —are not totally at
fault & AES can’t correct the problem alone. Counties
must share in this & where they have been low they must
help correct their portion.
11. Review differences in salary between men &
women by titles —D o n ’t use actual figures o f salary
averages.
12. Review summary of county support by race &
sex —Have supported non-white positions about 5-6%
lower.
13. Was our feeling that would be to our advan
tage-plus simply the right thing to do —to move to make
some salary adjustments as quickly as pos. & preferably
before our plan went into Washington.
14. Review what’s happened in Michigan & Illinois.
130
15. We have “squirrelled” a little money for past year
and after m uch effort persuaded budget people downtown
to let us use it —much of which would have been lost July
1—to make some salary adjustments. Reduced vacant
positions used almost all our reserves & about every un
committed dollar we [had?]. Originally proposed to give
adjustment & anticipated July raise at same time. After
PA -l’s were typed they got cold feet & said we couldn’t
give July raises because weren’t assurred [sic] there’d be
any. Had to go back & adjust on more.
16. Asked Dist. Chs. to give us a figure of adjustment
needed on women & non-white men positions in their
District & the portion that State should assume. As best we
could [,] we’ve followed these recommendations.
17. Majority are $500-$700 range —County should
probably do $30Q-$400 also —for total of $800-$ 1100.
18. No one gets less than $500, I believe. No one will
get less than $200 July —assuming 5% increase.
19. This will relieve pressure on our other salary in
crease money —Not that this will affect raise these people
will get July 1 but will mean we will not have to take
regular salary increase money & use to make these ad
justments. Were never able to [s/c] this on non-white posi
tions & thru years we have used a heavier than average
amount to try to correct some of these inequities. So this is
really going to help every other member of the Ext. staff.
20. You should call this to attention of commis
sioners. If complaint is filed they will be included for their
portion of the salary.
21. Have not corrected all our problems. Are going to
try to do a few more July 1.
131
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 173
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION
Office of the Deputy Director for Extension
Washington, D.C. 20250
May 9, 1978
SUBJECT: Trends in State 4-H Affirmative Action Pro
grams
TO: Assistant Directors and State Leaders, 4-H-Youth
Extension 4-H staff and volunteer leaders are to be com
mended for an impressive record in expanding 4-H pro
gram opportunities for minority youth. Ten years ago
(1968) national 4-H enrollments totaled 2,297,760 of
which 356,021 were minority youth. The 1977 enrollments
of youth in 4-H clubs, 4-H special interest groups and 4-H
EFNEP totaled 4,918,231 of which 1,218,011 were minori
ty youth —well over three times as many as in 1968.
The percentage of youth participants from minority
racial-ethnic groups attending Extension 4-H conducted
camps increased from 19.5% in 1972 to 22.5% in 1977.
Nationwide, more than 60% of the camp sessions involved
youth of more than one racial-ethnic group. It is essential
that continued efforts to made [sic] to conduct all 4-H
camps in a non-discriminatory manner.
More than 10,000 additional 4-H volunteers from
minority groups served in 1977 than served in 1972 with
4-H clubs and 4-H special interest groups. Additional
minority volunteers assisted 4-H EFNEP.
The single most vulnerable area in assessing the progress
of State 4-H affirmative action programs is the high
number of 4-H clubs and 4-H special interest groups in
132
mixed communities which have youth of only one racial-
ethnic group. Approximately one-half of the States each
have more than 500 such units.
We suggest that you identify the counties in your State
where there are such 4-H units and counsel with county
staffs. Many counties having only a few minority families
have identified 4-H program service areas or community
boundaries of such size as to cover major portions of an
entire county —sometimes the whole county. In such cases
all of the 4-H clubs in such areas or county are considered
to be in a mixed race area. It may be appropriate in such
instances for staff working with the County 4-H Expan
sion and Review Committees to review, and if desirable,
redraw the boundaries. When this is done, record of the
changes and reasons for them should be on file in the
county office.
We are enclosing a copy of the trend summary for your
State from 1968 through 1978. You may find this helpful
as you work with counties on 4-H affirmative action in the
months ahead.
Once again, you and members of your staff are to be
commended on the progress during the past 10 years.
Sincerely,
E. DEAN VAUGHAN
4-H —Youth
Enclosure
4-H-30 (5-78)
133
State NORTH CAROLINA
NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES OF
ENROLLMENTS IN 4-H OF YOUTH FROM
MINORITY RACIAL-ETHNIC GROUPS
Enrollments in 4-H Clubs and 4-H Special Interest Groups
Year Total
Youth From
Minority
Racial-Ethnic
Groups
Percent of 4-H
Enrollment From
Minority Groups
1968 NO REPORT NO REPORT NO REPORT
1969 54,654 21,862 40.0
1970 56,926 19,725 34.7
1971 65,139 22,119 34.0
1972 69,307 22,964 33.1
1973 81,834 27,721 33.9
1974 95,589 36,522 38.2
1975 90,640 33,491 36.9
1976 93,408 33,262 35.6
1977 97,954 35,834 36.6
Enrollments of Youth in 4-H EFNEP (1973 First Year
Racial-Ethnic Data Avail.)_______________________
1973 45,646 29,337 64.3
1974 41,259 26,893 65.2
1975 39,576 27,681 69.9
1976 28,893 20,111 69.6
1977 27,725 18,794 67.8
134
Total 4-H Enrollments in 4~H Clubs, 4-H Special Interest
Groups, 4-H EFNEP______________________________
1973 127,490 57,058 44.8
1974 136,848 63,415 46.3
1975 130,216 61,172 47.0
1976 122,301 53,373 43.6
1977 125,679 54,628 43.5
State NORTH CAROLINA
NUMBERS OF 4-H UNITS-4-H CLUBS AND 4-H
SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS-BY TYPES OF
COMMUNITY AND PERCENTS OF 4-H UNITS IN
MIXED COMMUNITIES WHICH ARE
INTEGRATED
Y e a r
T o ta l N u m b e r
o f 4 -H U n its
N u m b e r o f 4 -H
U n its N o t In
M ix e d C o m m u
n itie s
N u m b e r o f In te - N u m b e r o f 4 -H
g r a te d 4 -H U n its N o t In te -
U n its — In M ix e d g r a te d — In M ix e d
C o m m u n i t ie s C o m m u n it ie s
P e rc e n t o f 4 -H
U n its In M ix ed
C o m m u n it ie s
W h ic h A re In
te g ra te d
1972 2,587 1,109 586 892 39.6
1973 2,857 1,122 771 964 44.4
1974 3,182 1,151 1,017 1,014 50.0
1975 3,255 1,241 1,108 906 55.0
1976 3,298 1,085 1,260 953 56.9
1977 3,068 1,028 1,142 898 56.0
YOUTH ATTENDING EXTENSION 4-H
CONDUCTED CAMP SESSIONS
Y e a r T o ta l Y o u th M in o r i ty P e rc e n t M in o r i ty
A tte n d in g Y o u th o f T o ta l A t te n d in g
1972 13,171 5,598 42.5
1973 17,284 8,367 48.4
1974 22,511 11,719 52.1
1975 22,566 12,193 54.0
1976 19,514 8,487 43.5
1977 18,427 7,694 41.8
135
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 182 (EXCERPTS)
* * * * *
1974 CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVES
FOR DISCUSSION AT MEETING ON APRIL 5, 1974
* * * * *
3. New Homemaker and 4-H Clubs —
The policy is that no new uniracial clubs are permitted
in biracial communities unless it can be shown that all
reasonable efforts have been made to organize the club on
an integrated basis. The agent working to organize the
club will identify the geographic area from which the
membership is expected to be drawn. Next, the racial
make-up of the population in that area will be estimated.
If there is a biracial composition to this population (one
race less than 90 percent of the total) the club membership
must be integrated or documented evidence shown that
sincere but unsuccessful efforts were made to have an in
tegrated membership. The documented evidence will be a
statement by the agent showing: (a) that ten (10) in
dividuals of the “other” race were given personal invita
tions to participate (including descriptions of the activities
of the proposed club), (b) the names and addresses of
these individuals, (c) the name of the person issuing the in
vitation to each person and (d) the date issued. The spirit
of the policy on “invitations to join” is that it be personal
(one-to-one) and not an announcement in the press or at a
meeting, although this method may be used to supplement
the personal invitation. In addition, the new club officers
will certify the openness of the club to all races.
* * * * *
7. Altering the Nature of Segregated Clubs —
A program will be undertaken immediately to achieve a
voluntary desegregation of all uniracial clubs in biracial
communities. The program will involve members of the
136
administration and supervisory staff working with county
staffs and the lay leadership in each county. The impact of
the USDA Affirmative Action Program and the Alabama
and Mississippi decisions will be explained. Voluntary de
segregation will be requested. Multiple approaches will be
suggested, such as: (a) combining clubs, (b) recruiting
from the “other” race in the community, (c) joint meetings
of clubs for educational programs, (d) restructuring two
or more clubs in a given community, (e) finding “neutral”
meeting places, (f) obtaining biracial teams of lay leaders
to reinforce the efforts of the professional staffs to inter
pret the need for change and others.
Note: This is deleted from the 1974 Civil Rights Initiatives
137
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 184
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
AT RALEIGH
SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES
Agriculture Extension Service
Office of the Director
Box 5157, Zip 27607
May 3, 1974
TO: District Supervisors
Attached is, a statement of civil rights initiatives which
should be undertaken according to schedules included.
These steps are those which have been decided upon
following thorough discussions of our present status and
needs. I appreciate the careful attention you have given to
the development of this program and I am sure that you
will carry forward in the same spirit with the respon
sibilities assigned to you in this statement. In doing so, I
hope that you will make use of the services of those of us
in the administration as appropriate.
Very truly yours,
George Hyatt, Jr.
Associate Dean and Director
GH:ms
Attachment
cc: Administration
Specialists in Charge
138
1974 CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVES
1. County 4-H Councils —
The status of the county councils should be reexamined.
The 4-H staff will specify what is the appropriate represen
tation on the Council. In those counties where the councils
are inactive, they should be reactivated immediately. This
should be accomplished by July 1, 1974, by the district
teams. These counties will need assistance in making the
council a meaningful entity. This will require more time
but should be accomplished by June 30,1975, by the com
bined effort of the district teams and the 4-H staff.
2. Functional Arrangement of Office Space, Telephone
Numbers, Post Office Boxes, Mailing Lists and Assign
ment of Secretarial Work without Regard to Race —
Instances of the existence of non-functional ar
rangements should be eliminated by the district teams by
July 1, 1974.
3. New Homemaker and 4-H Clubs —
The leaders and/or officers of all new Homemaker and
4-H Clubs will certify in writing that the club is open to all
people without regard to race, color or national origin. In
addition, the organization of the club will be announced to
the public by radio and newspapers, including the approx
imate location or area served by the club, its purposes and
the fact that it is open to all people without regard to race,
color or national origin.
4. Work across Racial Lines —
It continues to be the policy of the North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service that our staff provides
services to people without regard to race, color or national
origin. Practices which impede the full implementation of
this policy should be eliminated.
a. A gen ts m eeting with 4-H and H om em aker C lubs-
District teams will ascertain by July 1, 1974, that agents
are meeting with clubs without regard to race. Two agents
(one White, one Black) meeting with a given club might be
139
a way to achieve this goal but will be viewed only as a
means to the end of agents meeting with clubs in subject or
program areas without regard to race.
b. Leader recruitm ent and training—
Leader recruitment and training will be done without
regard to race by July 1, 1974. The affirmative re
quirements for dealing with the races should be a part of
the initial training of leaders. This should be implemented
during 1974 by the district teams.
c. Referral o f con tacts—
County chairmen will take steps to be sure that people
who call at the county office by telephone or in person are
referred to the agent whose areas of assignment are ap
propriate to the questions the caller has. This will require
extensive discussion in staff meetings and special training
for the secretarial staff. The district teams will see that this
is accomplished in 1974.
d. Specialists’ contacts with county s ta f fs —
The administration will continue efforts to eliminate in
stances of specialists violating the spirit of assigned areas
of responsibility. This was discussed at the Specialist-in-
Charge meeting on April 26, 1974, and will be discussed
again with all specialists at the meeting of state level peo
ple on May 24,1974. Follow-up by the administration will
continue with specialists who commit acts, intentional or
otherwise, which violate the spirit of the assigned areas of
county staff members.
e. Pattern o f contacts by s ta f f—
Each county staff member will analyze his or her pat
tern of contacts by race based on SEMIS. This will be
compared with the potential clientele for the relevant pro
gram areas. The county and district chairmen will make a
review of contacts by race a part of the annual perform
ance review process beginning in 1974-75.
5. Reaching Minority Race People —
Each county shall analyze the extent to which they as a
total staff are reaching Blacks and Indians in the latest
140
period for which SEMIS data is available (July-December
1973 or July 1973-June 1974) as compared with the total
potential clientele for each program area (Agriculture,
Home Economics, 4-H, Community Resource Develop
ment and Environmental Quality). The county staff will
estimate the racial mix for each program area based on
county population data, numbers of farmers, etc. In coun
ties with large urban areas, different weights might be put
on the urban population, depending on the extent of ur
ban programming. Estimates will be added for program
aides who do not report on SEMIS. For those program
areas in which contacts by race are less than 80 percent of
the potential clientele percentage (for example, less than 8
percent if the minority race potential is 10 percent or less
than 32 percent if the minority race potential is 40
percent), a plan will be developed to increase the percent
age of Blacks or Indians contacted. This plan will state (a)
what will be done, (b) who will do it, (c) when it will be
done, and (d) the specific result expected to be achieved.
The 80 percent variance should not be considered a goal.
The goal shall be to serve minority race people at least in
relation to their percentage of the potiential clientele. This
principle should be considered in setting the goal expected
in (d) above. District teams will review the county analyses
before December 31, 1974, and anually thereafter.
6. Judging State and District Demonstrations —
Beginning in 1974 and continuing thereafter 25 percent
of the judges for district and state demonstrations will be
from minority races. The responsibility for this rests
primarily with the specialist responsible for administering
the demonstration. Each such specialist shall comply with
the 25 percent requirement by combining the judging teams
for the districts with that for the state and computing the
percentage by race. However, the state judging team should
include one or more persons from minority races. The 4-H
office will assist specialists in meeting this requirement.
141
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 191
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES
Agricultural Extension Service
Office of the Director
Box 5157 Zip 27607
March 31, 1977
TO: D. G. Harwood, Jr.
Donald L. Stormer
FROM: Chester D. Black
At the last District Chairmen’s conference we discussed
briefly the Affirmative Action requirements for organiza
tion of new 4-H and Extension Homemakers clubs.
Following this conference Dr. Stormer shared his desired
documentation to be followed in the formation of new
4-H clubs. Almost simultaneously Mrs. Meldau brought
to our attention the Civil Rights Initiatives shared with our
staff in 1974. Under the heading of New Homemaker and
4-H Clubs there are listed the requirements which were
given to the agents at that time.
Since we have a discrepancy between the two documen
tations currently requested, I would appreciate you
gentlemen assisting our staff in an interpretation of what
should be the current status regarding Affirmative Action
initiatives being taken by our field staff in the formation
of 4-H and Homemaker clubs.
CDB:ms
142
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 192
April 4, 1977
Dr. Chester D. Black
110 Ricks Hall
NCSU Campus
Dear Dr. Black:
In your memorandum of March 31 you asked the two of
us to interpret the current status of affirmative action ini
tiatives to be followed by field staff in the formation of
4-H and Homemaker clubs.
At a meeting on January 6 of Mr. Howard Manning,
Dr. Hyatt, Dr. Blalock, Mr. Dodson and Mr. Harwood,
acting on the advice of counsel, Dr. Hyatt stated that it
shall be the policy of the N.C. Agricultural Extension
Service to take necessary steps to avoid all discrimination
in delivery of services, but that unnecessary record
keeping, delineation of geographical boundaries, physical
counting of population in a community and other affirm
ative action chores which require tremendous amounts of
staff time should be avoided. At that time it was noted
that a formal, complete affirmative action plan would re
quire an estimated $6-$8 million in staff time. Also,
counsel advised that a court order resulting from the civil
rights suit would likely require steps in addition to any af
firmative action measures then being implemented
anyway.
In view of this decision, knowing that the N.C.
Agricultural Extension Service is essentially “sheltered”
from discrimination issues until the pending litigation is
settled, and yet because our understanding is that violation
of the various civil rights laws can be charged eventually
against any employee who cannot document compliance,
we offer the following suggestions:
143
1. I f we are asked what a ffirm ative action requires1 in
formation of new 4-H and Homemaker clubs, then the
correct response is to “make reasonable efforts” to in
tegrate these units, basically as defined in Dr. Stormer’s
memo of March 25, 1977.
2. I f we are asked what the po licy o f the N orth
Carolina Agricultural Extension Service is with respect to
affirm ative action, then reference must be made to the
“1974 Civil Rights Initiatives” which were agreed upon by
Administration and which were attached to Mrs. Meldau’s
memo of March 29, 1977.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Stormer D. G. Harwood, Jr.
Assistant Director, 4-H Assistant Director,
Administration and Special
Programs
1 See “Title 9, Equal Opportunity Administrative Regulations,”
USDA, November 18, 1976.
144
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 193
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
AT RALEIGH
SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES
Office of the Director
Box 5157, Zip 27607
April 18, 1978
TO: All County Extension Chairmen
SUBJECT: Meeting Structure for Extension Homemakers
The new Extension Homemaker meeting structure, ap
proved by the Extension Homemakers State Organization,
is now policy for the N. C. Agricultural Extension Service
and the new meeting structure will begin on October 1,
1978. Details of this new meeting arrangement were
discussed during March at district level meetings of Coun
ty Chairmen, Home Economics Agents with Extension
Homemaker liaison responsibilities, and presidents of Ex
tension Homemaker County Councils.
Basically, the restructuring will result in the following
Extension Homemaker meeting schedule:
1. Three area meetings with lessons conducted by Ex
tension Home Economists during three quarters of the
year.
2. One meeting during a quarter of the year when the
Extension Home Economist will meet with each club.
3. Eight local Extension Homemaker Club meetings
with lessons presented by volunteer leaders, with prior
training by appropriate Home Economics Agent.
In order to document the procedures for implementing
this policy, please ask the Extension Home Economist
with liaison for Extension Homemakers, working with the
145
District Program Leader, Home Economics, to submit to
Dr. Eloise Cofer by September 1, 1978, the following
documents:
1. County map, identifying location of clubs, location
of area meeting boundaries.
2. Listing of club membership by area, indicating race
of members and race of potiential clientele.
3. Meeting schedule planned, listing program features,
dates, locations.
4. Copies of any public notices of new meeting
schedule (newsletters, news articles, radio scripts).
5. Narrative statement of procedures followed in
restructuring Extension Homemakers meetings, identify
ing any planning committees with respect to race of
members.
I am confident that this new policy will result in in
creased Extension Homemakers membership, better
meetings, more efficient use of agents’ time and closer
compliance with affirmative action regulations.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
George Hyatt, Jr.
Associate Dean and Director
cc: Extension Administration
District Chairmen
District Program Leaders
Home Economics Specialists-in-Charge
146
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 194
April 25, 1978
Mr. Howard Manning, Sr.
Manning, Fulton & Skinner
P.O. Box 1150
Raleigh, N.C. 27602
Dear Mr. Manning:
The attached copy of a letter from Dr. George Hyatt
outlines a new policy for the Extension Homemakers
meeting structure as conducted by the Extension Home
Economists of the N.C. Agricultural Extension Service.
This arrangement has implications for civil rights, and we
have tried to inform County Extension Chairmen, Exten
sion Home Economists and Extension Homemaker of
ficers of the need for grouping Homemaker clubs accord
ing to township boundaries so that race of members and
race of potential clientele can be documented. There are
some other very good reasons why the Extension
Homemaker meeting structure is being changed, but I did
want you to know what we are doing because of the im
plications for civil rights.
Sincerely yours,
D. G. Harwood, Jr.
Assistant Director
Enclosures
147
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 195
September 4, 1979
TO: Dr. T. C. Blalock
FROM: D. G. Harwood, Jr.
You will recall that as long as Dr. Hyatt was Director of
the N.C. Agricultural Extension Service, he refused to
allow implementation of one of the “all reasonable effort”
guidelines suggested in “Guidelines for Identification of
Potential Recipients in State Cooperative Extension Serv
ice Programs.” That provision was to “Make personal con
tact annually with minority group members to inform
them of programs and to encourage their active participa
tion.” Dr. Hyatt agreed to allow implementation of “use
of mailing lists for minority group members to receive in
formation on a continuing basis, extend invitations
through letters, newspapers and so forth to minority
group members to attend and participate, direct informa
tion on programs and activities to sources of business and
social contacts of minority group members, identify and
utilize various mass media outlets which serve to
disseminate information to minority group members, and
maintain documentation of these efforts to involve
minority group members.”
I understand that Extension Homemakers, with
assistance from Extension Home Economics Agents, will
shortly be launching a membership drive throughout the
state to increase greatly the numbers of Extension
Homemakers. I am wondering how you feel about now
implementing the provision regarding personal contact
with minority group members to inform them of programs
and to encourage their active participation in Extension
Homemaker and 4-H activities. I personally feel that this
next step will be required to satisfactorily comply with
148
affirmative action mandates. It may be that the personal
contacts could be made by Extension Homemakers rather
than by Home Economists. However, you yourself realize
that often participation is not encouraged through simply
notifying minorities through mass media outlets. I
recognize that this implementation would require some ad
ditional time and travel. However, since this contact could
be made over a period of a year, it seems to me that the
contacts could be made in connection with other trips out
in the county and would not require an undue amount of
time and travel. Also, it could only be implemented in
areas where new clubs were being formed, so this restric
tion alone could keep the time and travel within
manageable levels.
I will await your instructions in this regard.
149
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 198
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL
OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SERVICES
Agricultural Extension Service
Office of the Director
Box 5157 Zip 27650
November 14, 1979
Mr. Howard E. Manning, Sr.
Manning, Fulton & Skinner
P. O. Box 1150
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr. Manning:
Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1979, enclos
ing documents which you recently filed in reference to
Bazemore vs. N. C. Agricultural Extension Service (your
file G-6778). On page 4 of the Defendant’s Answer to
Amended Complaint in Intervention and in paragraph 14
it is stated that the defendant Dr. George Hyatt, Jr., is the
Director of the N. C. Agricultural Extension Service. You
will recall that Dr. T. C. Blalock was named Director of
the N. C. Agricultural Extension Service on July 1, 1978. I
don’t know whether this makes any difference or not and
whether or not this should be corrected, but since you
mention in paragraph 13 on page 3 that John T. Caldwell
has not been Chancellor of N.C. State University for
several years, I thought I should bring this oversight to
your attention.
I will be contacting you again in a few days in order to
ascertain whether or not you feel certain publication
distribution and implementation of all reasonable efforts
is in the best interest of the N.C. Agricultural Extension
Service, given the current state of the Civil Action No.
2879.
Sincerely,
D.G. Harwood, Jr.
cc: Dr. Clauston Jenkins Assistant Director,
Dr. T. C. Blalock Agriculture and
Special Programs
150
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 199
November 15, 1979
Mr. Howard Manning, Sr.
Manning, Fulton & Skinner
P. O. Box 1150
Raleigh, NC 27602
Dear Mr. Manning:
At a recent meeting of our Administrative Council, the
Administration of the North Carolina Agricultural Exten
sion Service voted to begin implementation of “all
reasonable efforts” in delivery of Extension programs of
this state, with particular emphasis on “personal visits by
the county Extension staff member(s) to a representative
number of defined potential recipients in the geographical
ly defined area to encourage participation.”
We do not want to take this step if it will in any way
compromise our position in the pending civil action
against our organization. Do you feel that our actions on
“all reasonable efforts" would be detrimental to our case
at this time?
Also, enclosed is a copy of Strengthening 4-H Programs
Through A ffirm a tive A c tio n (Discussion of “All Reason
able Efforts” on pages 20-23). Would you advise against
our distributing this publication to each county office?
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
D. G. Harwood, Jr.
Assistant Director, Agriculture
and Special Programs
cc: Dr. T. C. Blalock
Dr. Clauston Jenkins
Mr. Millard Rich
151
GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT 200 (EXCERPTS)
* * * * *
STRENGTHENING 4-H PROGRAMS THROUGH
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
* * * * *
SECTION V/ “All Reasonable Efforts”
The philosophy of taking educational program services
to the unserved by seeking them out and providing them
with program information, assistance and benefits is ger
mane to the issues presented in this section. In spite of the
fact that the Cooperative Extension Service has successful
ly served its clientele through various educational pro
grams for over 60 years, the question of reaching the
unreached is particularly significant to the nonparticipa
tion problem of minority group members.
The question of involvement and increased participa
tion of minorities in Extension educational programs has
led to suggested practical steps which can be taken to meet
both the 4-H program and affirmative action program re
quirements. The intent in the application of “all
reasonable efforts” is a program management tool. Ef
forts outlined here will result in an informed public and
encourage them to participate.
Question 40: What is meant by “all reasonable efforts”
with respect to the 4-H program?
Answer: The term “all reasonable efforts,” as used in
the Affirmative Action Plan, applies to organized Exten
sion Homemaker Groups and 4-H Clubs. The m inim um
reasonable effort required by county Extension s ta f f
members includes all items listed as follows:
• Use of all available mass media, including radio,
newspaper, and television, to inform potential recipients
of the program and of opportunity to participate.
152
• Personal letters and circulars addressed to defined
potential recipients inviting them to participate, including
dates and places of meetings or other planned activity.
• Personal visits by the county Extension staff
member(s) to a representative number of defined potential
recipients in the geographically defined area to encourage
participation.
State Extension Services may require additional steps to
be taken such as encouraging volunteers to assist by in
volving potential recipients in opportunities to participate,
but such additional steps are no t required by USDA in
meeting these requirements. If a State requires additional
steps to be taken, then the State should be explicit and
point out that such is a State requirement. (The greatest
results will be obtained when these reasonable efforts are
carried out in conjunction with upcoming or planned ac
tivities. An invitation extended in a vacuum, without some
activity scheduled, will yield little motivation.
Question 41: Who is responsible for “all reasonable ef
forts” and what documentation is expected to show that
these have been carried out?
Answer: The State Cooperative Extension Service, as
the recipient agency to whom federal financial assistance is
extended, is responsible and accountable for all civil rights
matters in 4-H Clubs and the ?-H youth development pro
gram. Therefore, the Affirmative Action Plan specifically
identifies the county Extension s ta f f member(s) as those
responsible for carrying out “all reasonable efforts.”
However, county Extension staff members may solicit the
voluntary assistance of lay leaders, officers of clubs, etc.,
to carry out these efforts. In this latter case, the county
Extension staff should provide procedures, materials and
forms to lay leaders and others for recording and report
ing to the county Extension office the “all reasonable ef
forts” which were carried out.
153
All activities conducted as a part of the 4-H youth
development program which involve participation should
be documented and available in the county files for review
purposes. Insofar as “all reasonable efforts” are con
cerned, “if it isn’t documented, it wasn’t done.”
Using “all reasonable efforts” for documentation pur
poses, the following records appear obvious:
Use o f Available M ass M edia
• Name of radio station(s) used; dates on which pro
grams were personally presented; dates on which radio
scripts were provided to the station for airing; copies of
any radio scripts which were used with personal presenta
tion.
• Name of TV station(s) used; dates on which programs
were presented and dates aired, if different; copies of
scripts, when used; copies of any scripts which were pro
vided to the station(s).
• Name of newspapers; dates on which news articles
were presented to papers and copies of articles presented
for publishing; dates on which articles appeared in
newspaper; clippings of such articles; date and identity of
newspaper(s) which released article.
Personal Letters and Circulars
• Copies of such letters and circulars in the file.
Names of persons to whom such letters and circulars
were sent.
Personal Visits
• Names and addresses of persons visited; dates of such
visits; names of persons present during the visits.
• Resume of significant contents of visit and followup
needed; and outcome of visit in terms of desire to par
ticipate or lack of interest; other important information
thought desirable.
154
Question 42: What are the bases for determining if “all
reasonable efforts” have been carried out?
Answer: Verify, through review of county office
records, the documentation to ascertain the adequacy of
the actions which were recorded, and evaluate the extent
to which the “all reasonable efforts” were completed.
County Extension staff should verify by occasional con
tact with those purported to have been communicated
with. Monitoring of radio and TV airings as well as news
releases serves as a useful criterion in evaluation.
Question 43: How do “all reasonable efforts” apply to
established 4-H Clubs? To new 4-H Clubs?
Answer: The concept of “all reasonable efforts” and its
criteria apply to all 4-H Clubs established presently in an
ongoing county 4-H program. In organizing new 4-H
Clubs in interracial communities, the “all reasonable ef
forts” must be carried out during the process of organiz
ing. This process provides opportunity for youth of all
races to become members. Only after the criteria of “all
reasonable efforts” have been met may a new club be
organized in interracial locales.
Such steps are simply good program development pro
cedure.
Question 44: How often must “all reasonable efforts” be
carried out?
Answer: After the “initial” efforts are completed (six
months following acceptance of plan), a continuing plan
of action based upon effective program planning pro
cedures and an effective public information and com
munications program should be developed and im
plemented. A continuing plan should focus upon these
4-H situations where the initial efforts were unproductive.
It should correlate the “all reasonable effort” requirements
with the various program plans and strategies, including
annual plans for Targeting of Minority Benefits.
155
Involve all public pronouncements of program par
ticipation opportunities through various mass media
sources and outlets in keeping with the provisions of the
public notification plan. Personal visits (by agent, leader,
officers or others) to prospective minority members
should be tied very closely to some planned program ac
tivity, perhaps unique to a club or several clubs where par
ticipation can occur almost immediately with appropriate
followup plans by agents or leaders. A membership pro
motional program such as National 4-H Week or other ap
propriate observance which includes these and other ef
forts to attract membership can be effective instruments in
meeting these requirements on a continuing basis.
Question 45: If there are ten (10) 4-H clubs in a
delineated geographic area and very few of these clubs
have interracial membership, but overall the clubs’
membership represents the general makeup of the com
munity, do these clubs meet affirmative action re
quirements?
Answer: There may be situations in high density urban
areas when this question could be answered affirmatively.
Generally, the above situation as described does not meet
the interracial membership requirements of each club in a
geographic area, particularly where minority youth are
scattered throughout the community. (See Standard 1, Ac
tion Required, 1, b and c, pp. 34 and 35 of the Affirmative
Action Plan.)
Each of those clubs whose membership is of one race
and serving an interracial community must comply with
the “all reasonable efforts” to integrate its membership
before it can meet the affirmative action requirements.
* * * * *
Question 59: In what types of circumstances must Ex
tension withdraw its services from a 4-H Club; the 4-H
program; or a total county 4-H program?
156
Answer: Legally speaking, any circumstance which
violates regulations for the administration of Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be grounds for the ter
mination of services by the Cooperative Extension Service.
The following situations are examples only of the range of
possibilities. Any organization with whom Extension
works, including a 4-H Club, which discriminates and/or
restricts membership and participation or provides serv
ices differently or in a different manner, or segregates,
based on race, color or national origin, are grounds for
removal of services by Extension.
Any 4-H Club whose membership is of one race and
serving an interracial community or area must make “all
reasonable efforts” to integrate the membership. Service
to such clubs must be terminated if the membership re
mains of one race and “all reasonable efforts” are not car
ried out. Similar circumstances would precipitate this
same action for new clubs being organized.
Termination of services may occur on a county basis if
the 4-H program in that county is conducted in a
discriminatory manner. The conduct of educational ac
tivities and events which are, or have the effect of being,
segregated, restricted, provided differently or in a dif
ferent manner, or which deny participation based upon
race, color or national origin, may cause the termination
of services.
In a county where the practice of discrimination is
severe and voluntary compliance with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 is not possible, may be sufficient
grounds for removal of the total Extension program from
that county.
Non-compliance with the provisions of the affirmative
action plan, or any one of its provisions, may serve as the
basis for the termination of services.
* * * * *
157
G O V E R N M E N T E X H IB IT 201
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES
Agricultural Extension Service
Office of the Director
Box 5157 Zip 27650
February 29, 1980
TO: Dr. T. C. Blalock
FROM: D. G. Harwood, Jr.
Yesterday I was finally able to talk at length by
telephone with Mr. Howard Manning, Sr., regarding our
proposal to implement “all reasonable efforts” in our Ex
tension program. Mr. Manning says he is not unalterably
opposed to our implementing “all reasonable efforts,” but
he feels that it would not be in our best interest. He
pointed out that we have implemented an affirmative ac
tion program informally except for the “all reasonable ef
forts” provision. He says that by stratifying communities
geographically, we will first of all lower the standards for
our program inasmuch as we will be forced to accept 4-H
Club members, for example, who may not have the in
terest or talent to participate in club activities. He says we
will have to adapt our program more toward federal
guidelines; but, more importantly, he says that this really
provides the foundation for a civil action suit by the
Justice Department who may point out that, “Okay, you
structured communities for integrated clubs and you are
not achieving the level of integration projected; therefore,
you are not in compliance.”
158
Mr. Manning says that he has based our entire defense
on the fact that the N. C. Agricultural Extension Service
has been trying —within its own system —to voluntarily
achieve integration throughout its programs. He says we
can substantiate that this change has occurred over time
and that, whereas if we had tried to force the change
through a rigid affirmative action program, that we would
have simply lost the 4-H and home economics programs,
as some other states have. He says we have tried to use
judgment in determing how fast we could move and where
we had to yield in order to maintain ongoing programs.
He says the judge understands this and that now if we try
to implement an “all reasonable efforts” program, then
what we will be in effect doing is saying to the judge that
we were not successful in this and now we are trying to set
up a program to bring about forced change in our pro
grams. He says this would defeat the foundation that he
has been using for our defense.
You will need to weigh this feeling and decide, but I am
inclined to agree with Mr. Manning that perhaps we
should not implement the “all reasonable efforts” provi
sion right now. Not only would there be a lot of resistance
in our communities among clientele for this type of ap
proach, but even within our own organization there is
going to be a lot of dissension. Both Mr. Manning and I
feel that ultimately we will be forced to get into the “all
reasonable efforts” program, but perhaps it might be best
to wait until our civil action is resolved. I will abide by
your decision in the matter.
cc: Dr. Black
159
G O V E R N M E N T E X H IB IT 214
July 6, 1973
Dr. J. T. McCown
Associate Dean for Extension
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Dear Dr. McCown:
Dr. Blalock asked me to write you and send some informa
tion which we have on professional salaries in our
organization. I have two pieces of information, both of
which are based on the salaries that existed in the 1971-72
fiscal year.
The first is a multiple regression of the salaries of our full
agents (not including chairmen) which assessed the effect
on salaries of (a) a master’s degree, (b) race, (c) sex and (d)
experience. The results were as follows:
Value of a master’s degree $605
Amount of salary of blacks
under salary of whites $455
Amount of salary of women
under salary of men $663
Value of 10 years’ experience $653
The other piece of information shows average salaries for
categories of agents identified by race, sex and rank. I
believe that this table and this supplementary information
160
are self explanatory. The second page gives a good bit of
detailed information about the groups —tenure, educa
tion, etc.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this in
formation.
Sincerely yours,
George L. Capel
Assistant Director, Marketing
and Special Programs
GLC:ms
cc: Dr. T. C. Blalock
Enclosure
161
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 78 (E X C E R P T )
M E M O R A N D U M O F U N D E R S T A N D IN G B E T W E E N T H E
N . C . A G R IC U L T U R A L E X T E N S IO N S E R V IC E -N O R T H
C A R O L IN A S T A T E U N IV E R S IT Y A N D T H E B O A R D O F
C O U N T Y C O M M IS S IO N E R S
* * * * *
The North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service was
established as a part of the School of Agriculture and Life
Sciences of North Carolina State University by Federal
and State legislation for the specific purpose of “extend
ing” the educational service of the University to the people
of the State on subjects relating to agriculture, home
economics, 4-H and youth, community and natural re
source development. It is the principal means by which the
findings of research in these subjects are communicated to
the people.
This legislation provided that Cooperative Extension
work be a partnership between three levels of govern
ment—Federal, State, and County —with these levels
being officially represented by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, North Carolina State University and the
County Boards of Commissioners. By this arrangement
County Extension Agents are joint employees of North
Carolina State University and the Board of County Com
missioners. They are also official representatives of the
United States Department of Agriculture.
To assure maximum benefits of this educational service
to the people it is important that the elected and appointed
officials of each level of government understand their
respective responsibilities and the relationships in the con-;
duct of this work. It is to this end that the following
description of responsibilities and relationships was
developed.
162
R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S A N D R E L A T IO N S H IP S
The North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service will:
1. Provide the State proportionate share of salaries for
County Extension personnel. The salaries of all workers
will be determined jointly by the Agricultural Extension
Service and County Boards of Commissioners, and the
proportionate share paid by the State and by the County
will be determined by the above two parties.
2. Provide funds for official travel necessary in the
conduct of Extension work to the extent that funds are
available and for purposes authorized by State and
Federal policies.
3. Accept responsibility for:
a. Establishing minimum requirements and
qualifications for employment in Extension work.
b. Receiving and examining applications for
employment.
c. Interviewing and otherwise investigating ap
plicants to determine their qualifications and availability.
d. Recommending to the County Commissioners,
for their consideration, qualified applicants for appoint
ment to vacant or new Extension positions.
4. Prepare and submit an annual budget request to the
Board of County Commissioners for the County’s propor
tionate share of funds for the total operating budget.
5. Provide County Extension agents with official
envelopes, bulletins, leaflets, and other publications.
6. Accept responsibility and provide the leadership for
administration and supervision of Extension programs
and personnel, including compliance with the re
quirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applicable to
the Cooperative Extension Service.
7. Provide a staff of specialists to continuously train
agents in current technology and other changes affecting
163
agriculture, home economics, 4-H and youth, community
and natural resource development and to assist them in the
conduct of work in these areas.
8. Provide agents with individual on-the-job training
by Extension specialists and district agents and plan and
arrange for such group training programs and activities as
are deemed advisable.
T he B o a rd o f C o u n ty C o m m iss ion ers w ill:
1. Provide the County’s proportionate share of
salaries for the County Extension personnel. The salaries
of all workers will be determined jointly by the Board of
County Commissioners and the North Carolina
Agricultural Extension Service.
2. Provide office space and equipment, utilities,
telephone, office supplies, and demonstration materials
needed for efficient operation of the County Extension
Office and program.
3. Review and consider the annual budget request
from the Extension Service and take appropriate action by
July 1 of each fiscal year.
4. Confer and advise with the District and County Ex
tension agents and Extension Advisory Boards relative to
county Extension programs.
T he N o rth C a ro lin a A g r ic u ltu ra l E x ten s ion Service and the B oa rd
o f C o u n ty C o m m iss ion ers m u tu a lly agree:
1. That all County Extension appointments and
separations are to be worked out jointly by the North
Carolina Agricultural Extension Service and the Board of
County Commissioners, and that no official action will be
taken by either party regarding appointment or separation
prior to discussion of the matter with the other party.
2. That the policies established by the State of North
Carolina and followed by the University be used as a guide
in granting annual, sick, civil, and military leave for
County Extension personnel.
164
3. To cooperate in meeting the requirements of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
4. That the policies of North Carolina State University
relative to the classification of employees will apply to all
County Extension workers; therefore, they will not be
classified under a county classification system.
5. That County Extension agents will be guided by
County policies relative to office hours and holidays.
We are in agreem ent with the above description o f the
responsibilities and relationships, and that this m em oran
dum o f understanding m ay be reviewed at any time but
shall be reviewed once each fo u r years.
Date: _______ _____________________ , Chairman
Board o f _____________________
C ounty Commissioners
Date: _______ _____________________ , Director
N orth Carolina Agricultural
Extension Service
165
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 196
SOUTHWESTERN 71/72% 1981 1976 1971
Alexander 40.72 25,089 16,730 14,263
Anson 31.08 21,000 18,080 13,474
Burke 47.86 27,152 18,303 14,040
Cabarrus 45.22 26,814 18,319 13,862
Caldwell 46.82 27,884 18,686 13,412
Catawba 41.27 28,788 18,537 14,619
Cleveland 36.87 27,204 18,801 13,600
Gaston 43.09 29,551 18,942 14,416
Iredell 39.12 30,901 20,574 14,308
Lincoln 41.36 26,391 16,754 15,339
Mecklenburg 52.42 29,500 19,150 13,975
Montgomery 36.56 26,000 18,471 12,742
Moore 48.50 24,185 17,610 12,752
Richmond 30.74 25,882 17,571 13,349
Rowan 39.25 27,871 21,622 15,976
Stanly 42.53 23,721 17,211 16,030
Union 36.65 31,004 17,500 14,760
TOTALS
NORTH CENTRAL
Chatham 35.95 28,116 18,940 13,910
Durham 39.60 27,015 18,375 13,375
Edgecombe 43.42 27,843 18,648 13,710
Franklin 27.69 24,842 17,023 13,106
Granville 38.22 30,402 Vacant 12,827
Halifax 42.73 31,177 19,159 14,596
Harnett 43.13 26,480 16,796 12,500
Johnston 44.20 33,765 21,217 15,145
Lee 35.93 21,584 17,680 13,008
Nash 40.36 25,990 17,135 12,936
Northampton 31.40 33,915 17,136 16,208
Orange 40.94 27,193 18,033 13,940
Person 27.85 26,045 18,480 13,206
Vance 37.01 22,740 18,325 13,466
Wake 44.30 29,458 21,800 16,588
Warren 29.73 24,244 17,730 13,400
Wilson 44.25 30,656 20,632 15,984
TOTALS
166
WESTERN 71/72% 1981 1976 1971
Avery 8.27 22,500 17,800 11,621
Buncombe 33.18 32,681 21,595 14,806
Cherokee 26.26 26,141 17,784 12,314
Clay 12.11 20,000 17,350 12,421
Graham 31.45 25,581 16,500 12,918
Haywood 29.53 27,968 18,028 14,350
Henderson 34.00 29,561 18,203 13,301
Jackson 40.32 Vacant 19,350 13,170
Macon 30.25 29,459 18,400 12,806
Madison 18.21 27,546 18,300 12,596
McDowell 35.11 21,459 17,229 13,088
Mitchell 14.29 22,630 18,200 13,146
Polk 36.71 23,134 17,955 12,960
Rutherford 44.51 27,300 19,114 13,878
Swain 18.90 21,725 17,678 13,230
Transylvania 40.02 25,581 17,424 11,670
Yancey 18.76 25,323 17,350 12,043
TOTALS
NORTHWESTERN
Alamance 45.37 24,861 17,634 15,386
Alleghany 23.72 22,718 17,180 12,500
Ashe 26.94 21,052 16,276 12,198
Caswell 29.91 21,156 16,453 12,554
Davidson 45.33 29,067 19,328 15,474
Davie 30.13 29,492 18,283 13,575
Forsyth 53.46 30,155 22,243 16,230
Guilford 47.41 32,120 21,364 16,392
Randolph 46.42 31,384 17,655 13,924
Rockingham 50.68 27,592 21,860 16,646
Stokes 35.54 20,500 17,065 13,450
Surry 42.36 27,000 18,741 14,590
Watauga 26.38 24,762 16,993 13,728
Wilkes 39.44 26,530 18,977 14,667
Yadkin 30.59 27,270 16,646 13,388
TOTALS
167
NORTHEASTERN 71/72% 1981 1976 1971
Beaufort 31.68 27,254 17,139 12,838
Bertie 23.96 25,275 16,484 13,001
Camden 15.96 25,285 16,356 11,726
Chowan 16.97 23,500 29,465 14,811
Craven 50.20 26,291 17,097 13,079
Currituck 28.40 26,292 18,337 12,868
Dare 22.12 23,260 16,028 11,601
Gates 18.16 29,564 19,209 12,355
Hertford 24.53 28,381 17,194 13,264
Hyde 18.85 28,490 18,284 12,682
Martin 40.58 29,426 18,805 13,143
Pamlico 20.82 23,000 18,189 13,243
Pasquotank 29.44 31,506 17,998 13,054
Perquimans 18.63 21,807 16,383 12,828
Pitt 43.32 27,556 19,848 14,581
Tyrrell 14.77 26,939 17,284 12,500
Washington 21.36 29,488 12,582 12,899
TOTALS
SOUTHEASTERN
Bladen 32.02 25,536 19,678 13,661
Brunswick 32.35 25,513 16,900 13,280
Carteret 37.56 27,655 17,806 13,227
Columbus 32.21 27,766 16,968 13,913
Cumberland 47.77 37,044 18,934 14,223
Duplin 30.85 26,878 18,615 14,156
Greene 30.31 26,860 18,000 12,792
Hoke 32.63 22,008 17,674 13,618
Jones 19.71 28,183 18,470 13,080
Lenoir 35.37 34,558 23,931 12,582
New Hanover 38.83 28,898 20,024 14,702
Onslow 39.19 24,783 14,422 12,524
Pender 27.57 25,295 16,871 12,252
Robeson 40.50 28,250 19,302 14,970
Sampson 37.27 34,577 19,490 13,862
Scotland 43.45 25,764 16,756 12,914
Wayne 44.14 28,962 21,532 16,278
TOTAL
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 201
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
_______________December 1976 Salary Summary
All Agents (1) Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree
Average
Number Salary
Average
Tenure
Average
Number Salarv
Average
Tenure Number
Average
Salary
Average
Tenure
Black 102 12,924 8.3 91 12,821 7.7 11 13,772 13.0
White 387 13,054 9.8 294 12,698 9.3 93 14,181 11.5
(1) Does not include County Extension Chairmen, which are partially administrative in nature.
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 202
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
___ February 1979 Salary Summary
All Agents (1) Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree
Average Average Average Average Average Average
Number Salary Tenure Number Salary Tenure Number Salary Tenure
Black 117 14,826 10.2 88 14,838 10.8 29 14,792 8.4
White 380 15,085 8.8 291 14,693 8.0 89 14,683 8.0
(1) Does not include County Extension Chairmen, which are partially administrative in nature.
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 203
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
November 1979 Salary Summary
All Agents (1) Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree
Average Average Average Average Average Average
Number Salary Tenure Number Salary Tenure Number Salary Tenure
Black 110 15,631 10.4 89 15,653 10.2 21 15,537 11.2
White 382 16,071 9.2 284 15,630 8.5 98 17,349 11.1
(1) Does not include County Extension Chairmen, which are partially administrative in nature.
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 204
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
______________ April 1980 Salary Summary
All Agents (1) Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree
Average
Number Salary
Average
Tenure Number
Average
Salary
Average
Tenure Number
Average
Salary
Average
Tenure
Black 103 16,010 10.4 84 15,773 10.1 19 17,060 11.9
White 367 16,050 8.7 271 15,649 8.2 96 17,182 10.4
(1) Does not include County Extension Chairmen, which are partially administrative in nature.
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 205
NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
April 1981 Salary Summary
All Agents (1) Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree
Average Average Average Average Average Average
Number Salary Tenure Number Salary Tenure Number Salary Tenure
Black 91 18,420 12.6 75 18,180 12.1 16 19,549 14.8
White 373 18,180 10.3 277 17,711 9.5 96 19,532 12.4
(1) Does not include County Extension Chairmen, which are partially administrative in nature.
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 219
TRENDS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA 4-H PROGRAM
_________________________ ___________________ 1971-80__________
------------------------------ 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
M e m b e r s in :
4-H Clubs 38,491 37,763
4-H Special Interest 26,648 31,544
4-H T.V. 71,442 99,147
Total
(excluding TV) 65,139 69,307
Total
(including TV) 136,581 168,454
U n its :
4-H Clubs 1,876 1,747
Special Interest
Groups * * 840
Total Units: 1,876 2,587
37,246
44,588
123,769
38,393
57,196
103,718
36,776
53,864
None
35,697
57,711
92,172
81,834 95,589 90,640 93,408
205,603 199,307 90,640 185,580
1,748 1,844 1,786 1,714
1,109
2,587
1,338
3,182
1,469
3,255
1,584
3,298
33,730
64,224
2,621
34,191
62,854
None
33,103
76,036
None
32,970
62,483
133
97,954 97,045 109,139 95,453
100,575 97,045 109,139 95,586
1,731 1,730 1,714 1,665
1,337
3,068
1,518
3,248
1,851
3,565
1,783
3,448
[CONTINUED NEXT PAGE]
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 2 1 9 - C o n t in u e d
TRENDS IN THE NORTH CAROLINA 4-H PROGRAM
_________________________1971-80______ ____________________________________
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
L e a d e r s :
Adult Leaders 7,407 6,472
Junior Leaders 2,599 2,323
10,006 8,795
* P la c e o f R e s id e n c e :
% Farm
% Towns under
37% 31%
10,000
% Cities 10,000
48% 50%
to 50,000 11% 9%
% over 50,000 4% 10%
7,270
2,390
7,932
2,393
8,777
2,591
9,363
2,702
9,660 10,325 11,368 12,065
32% 29% 28% 26%
50% 50% 49% 51%
12% 11% 14% 13%
7% 10% 10% 10%
10,522 11,213 12,408 12,607
2,602 2,993 3,172 2,671
13,124 14,206 15,580 15,278
-a
4̂
22% 21% 21% 24%
50% 50% 49.7% 52%
11% 11% 10.5% 14%
17% 18% 18.8% 10%
*Data base is membership in 4-H clubs and special interest groups
**Not reported
PE
R
C
EN
T
O
F
PO
TE
N
TI
A
L
175
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 221
PERCENT OF POTENTIAL YOUTH AGES 9-19
REACHED WITH 4-H PROGRAMS FOR COUNTIES
GROUPED BY SELECTED CATEGORIES OF PER
CAPITA INCOME
COUNTY GROUPINGS BY PER CAPITA INCOME
Sources: 1980 ES-237 Report
1980 Census of Population
1980 Records of District Extension Chairman
N
U
M
B
ER
O
F
P
EO
PL
E
SE
R
VE
D
176
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 222
NUMBER OF PEOPLE SERVED BY EXTENSION
4-H STAFF, PROFESSIONAL AND TOTAL
(INCLUDES PARAPROFRESSIONAL) IN
COUNTIES GROUPED BY SELECTED
CATEGORIES OF PER CAPITA INCOME
Sources: 1980 Census of Population
1980 ES-237 Report
1980 Records of District Extension Chairmen
1980 4-H Expansion Budget
177
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 227
4-H VOLUNTEERS
Percent- Percent-
Year Black age White age Total
1972 2,665 31 5,988 69 8,653
1976 3,760 32 8,174 68 11,934
1980 4,022 27 11,122 73 15,144
4-H MEMBERSHIP
Year Black Percent White Percent Total*
1972 22,174 32 46,313 68 68,486
1976 32,210 35 60,146 65 92,356
1980 30,243 32 64,138 68 94,381
* American Indian excluded from data
178
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 228
Number of
Single Racial
Year
Clubs in
Mixed
Communities
Number of
Youth Involved
in these Clubs
Total State
4-H
Membership
1974 1,014 19,789 95,589
1976 953 21,286 93,408
1978 920 17,625 97,045
1980 880 14,988 95,453
179
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 255
SALARY DATA FOR 35 PEOPLE WHO WERE
ACTIVELY EMPLOYED DURING 1975 BUT WERE
NOT ON DR. MANN’S LIST OF PEOPLE USED IN
HIS 1975 REGRESSION
Salary Data
1973 1974 1975 1976
Marilyn Cole 9,641 9,711 10,741
William S. Dixon 9,100 10,276
Simpson Currin 14,080 14,890
James Dunford 12,204 12,397
Pamela Gillenwater 9,472 9,472
John Rutledge 9,604
Ernest C. Short 10,257 10,887 10,957 11,535
John Stacy 16,441 17,809 18,255 18,855
George Stoudemire 17,015 19,014 20,350
Mary M. Swanner 8,500 9,242 9,292
Colon Godwin 13,815 15,415
Archie Martin 15,000 16,464 19,379
Marie Penuel 12,342
James Sikes 8,500 9,350 9,615
Harvey Thornton 9,406 10,156 10,369
Barbara Hinnant 9,160 10,593
Marjorie Holloway 8,728 9,493 9,553 10,053
Ona Humphrey 15,281 16,413 16,513
Slater T. Lloyd 11,947 12,970 12,970
Dennis Osborne 11,100 12,000
Cullie Tarlton 17,007 18,505 19,014
Linda Vandemark 10,450
Marilyn Blanchard 9,259 9,559
Louise Capps 10,143 10,978 11,187
Richard M. Edwards 12,149 13,236 13,316 14,116
James Piland 9,170
Steve Riddick 8,692 9,856 12,500 13,428
Naomi Desantels 19,622
Mary Gaddy 8,500 9,261 9,429
Mary Jones 8,674 9,868 9,928
William Meyer 10,000 10,800 12,650
Clifton Parker 9,914 10,654 10,650
Ray Williamson 9,498
Marcia Winnies 9,100 9,160 9,510
Dori Boyd 9,100 9,150
180
D E F E N D A N T S ’ E X H IB IT 258
Non-Extension Homemakers Audiences
Year Man Days % of H. E. Time
1978 3,881 77%
1979 37,474 82%
1980 36,911 82.5%
181
Supreme Court of t\)t Mniteb >̂tateg
No. 85-93
P. E. Bazemore, et al., petitioners
V.
W illiam C. F riday, et al.
ORDER ALLOWING CERTIORARI. Filed November
12, 1985.
The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is granted.
182
Supreme Court of tl)t Uruteb iMate#
No. 85-428
U nited States, et al., petitioners
v.
W itliam C. F riday, et al.
ORDER ALLOWING CERTIORARI. Filed November
12, 1985.
The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is granted.