Wilson v. Kelley

however, approximately $4,000.00 in cannot, excess award We average employees’ permitted the earnings. of the other two damages to Struski. We Mr. stipulation plaintiff’s a counsel to submit payroll trial which after history enumerated following Accordingly, make we employees Railroad of the of law: conclusions immediately immediately below above and OF CONCLUSIONS LAW have been on would Mr. Struski where jurisdiction 1. over This Court seniority has seniority not roster had his this action. sugges apparent been terminated. The Mr. if found that Stru wrongfully was that we tion dis- 2. Mr. Struski was discharged, wrongfully we could charged employment ski was en- from his and is average earnings two remain seniority titled with reinstatement full average ing employees and consider Railroad, by and IT IS SO defendant he earned had he would have as what ORDERED. discharged (with, of course not been 3. dam- Mr. is not entitled to Struski wages discounting earned in for ages. mitigate employment his dam object ages). for the defendant Counsel of these to the admission or use statis ed ground a method of that such tics on

computing would have what Mr. Struski unduly speculative. It would earned testimony argued that Mr. Struski’s was wages 1959 and as to earned between Johnny Plaintiffs, al., et indefinite,8 and that Mr. C. WILSON Stru was assignments work had testified that ski always per employees matter of Jr., KELLEY, D. Director of Asa the State according preference to the em Georgia, sonal Board of Corrections of assignments al., willingness accept ployees’ et Defendants. (N.T. 51), job at distant locations Civ. A. No. 11647. employees comparison with that therefore United States District Court meaning comparable seniority is not Georgia, N. D. logical infer ful. This would seem the Atlanta Division. year-to-year from the wide varia ence June salary Vivaequa Wilson tions findings of in our fact. agree with the inclined to areWe do reach we defendants. accepting question because even that plaintiff’s theory, would not Mr. Struski damages. em- be entitled seniority

ployee rolls him on the above ten-year pe- $65,356.93 over earned employee riod; him below earned ten-year period. Ac- $46,092.75 over representations as

cepting Mr. Struski’s ten-year earnings, for the his total

to his $59,500.00. This approximately period is ployment discharged brought him his with- the time he from was 8. Mr. Struski holding But and 1967. Penn until Central statement for 1966 years he testified Rockwell-Standard in 1962 he testified to 1965 figures, jobs that he exact had taken odd and earned “I don’t remember per right say about $70 around week. I would it was (N.T. 36) $7,000 year.” to his As em- Brent, Decatur, Ga., John Wm. How- Moore, Jr., Rindskopf, ard Peter E. At- lanta, Ga., Jones, Ga., Albany, P. Walter Morgan, Jr., Boult, Jr., Charles F. Reber Atlanta, Ga., Kinoy, Arthur L. Melvin Wulf, City, King, New York B. Al- C. bany, Ga., plaintiffs. for Twitty Twitty, Twitty, & Frank S. Sr., Camilla, Ga., defendant, Lyn- for wood Williford. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Arthur K. Harold Hill, Jr., Bryan, N. W. Wheeler Asst.

Attys. Gen., Georgia, Atlanta, State of Ga., defendant, for Wm. H. Burson. Bolton, Gen., Atty. Arthur K. Marion Gordon, Robins, Attys. O. Mathew Asst. Gen., Hinchey, Atlanta, Ga., John W. for defendant, Kelley, D. Asa Jr. Farkas, Ga., Davis, Albany, Landau & defendant, for Lewis Davis. Sheats, County Atty., Harold John T. Ferguson, County Atty., Atlanta, Asst. Ga., Ralph for T. Grimes. Bolton, Atty. Gen.,

Arthur K. Alfred Evans, Jr., Gen., Atty. L. Asst. Don L. Hartman, Atlanta, defendants, Ga., for Swain, Milner, Jr., Edwin L. Thomas H. Bowen, Sr., Hugh L. E. and Dr. A. Goodwin. Gen., Gordon, Atty.

Marion O. Asst. Stanley, Bennett, for John B. Stetson Jr., Watkins, Jr., Richard W. T. and Jack Rutledge. TUTTLE, Judge, Before Circuit SMITH, Judges. HOOPER and District SMITH, Jr., SIDNEY O. District Judge: three-judge suit, bring declaratory this action for in- junctive relief. Plaintiffs are white and inmates, inmates, pro- black former spective Georgia penal inmates of all in- juvenile, municipal, stitutions county and state levels. The defendants responsible op- through are the officials for the also maintains its Sheriff and and, deputies, jail housing eration of such fi- persons institutions ac nally constituted, include the prior cused of state violations to trial State Board for and Youth and jail-type Children service of minimal jailor (juveniles), city its Director optional sentences. Prior to 1964 on an (municipal), basis,1 two and a County sheriffs Commissioners of Camp county Public Works warden several counties established Public (county), Camps Board Corrections subject State Works which are to the (state), supervision and its Director and the state and control of the State Personnel Board and Director of Upon approval, its Board of Corrections. System. camps State Merit are authorized to receive prisoners for service of a State sentence presents, The suit and the case was employ and to them on certain autho tried, complaints seeking: on three basic public county. rized works within the segregation jails I. To abolish all in public camps The works and wardens penal of institutions guards appointed County by are Georgia. state of Commissioners, subject approval of prevent alleged II. To discrimination the State Board. Since each coun Negroes of at ty, state, required rather than penal deputy institutions and as large house and maintain a class of mis sheriffs within state of demeanants convicted of state offenses.2 Georgia, and county Thus 72 Works some Public county all III. To abolish Public Camps prisoners now house state who Camps Works within the state responsibility county are or of that Georgia. of neighboring who are too small counties poor facility or too to maintain such a I. assigned prisoners there as well as state system penal The is not sin by the Board of Corrections. gle entity, up made of several prisoners All felons and all other state parts responsible with different officials responsibility are the of the Board of type for the unit. administration of each peniten- Corrections in and are confined (under years Juvenile offenders 17 of tiary-type institutions, in honor state age) are, juvenile by commitment after camps (primarily offenders) for first courts, confined in area detention cen Training (primarily and the Alto Center training operated ters or state schools youthful offenders between 17 and by the State Board for Children years age). 21 of All in tolled there are Department Youth as a Division 10,000 persons of excess under confine- Services, Family and Children any given ment in all at institutions agency. City jails are state welfare Georgia. time in Georgia unincorpo by most maintained exceptions juve- municipalities house offenders With certain rated at level, prisoners and, initially, by nile offend all local ordinances by municipal compliance long-standing race ers of state laws arrested policy policemen prior to transfer state state enunciated in the statutes Georgia’s 159 counties under attack in this case.3 While such trial. Each segregation pris- the classification and 1. See Ga.Code 77-312. §: respect race, age, oners with first of- prisoners Basically those re- 2. fenders, incorrigi- habitual criminals and ceiving or months or less sentences six bles, mentally inmates, diseased diseased up to twelve sentence who serve inmates, having contagious, in- and those pay an alternative for failure to months fectious and incurable diseases. Incor- 27-2506; 77-312 § § fine. See Ga.Code rigible prisoners county public works (d). camps shall be returned to the State request 77-310(a) provides: The Board of Corrections § 3. Ga.Code proper county authority. provide for shall Board of Corrections

1009 system, case, primarily apply bama laws statutes in- attacked through sofar physical custom the other institutions relate to fact, have, segregation practice by matter of record as a race fall must by their inmates race. violative housed Fourteenth Amendment. It is reasonable to assume that the inte- clear, and such facts the law is Under gration of require such facilities will aspect of the case is controlled planning careful perhaps construc- Lee, of Frank Commis- the recent case changes existing tion institutions. of Alabama v. of Corrections sioner complete integration city of all Washington, S.Ct. U.S. county jails, Public Works 1968) (36 (March 11, 19 L.Ed.2d 1212 Camps, institutions, all state correctional 4225) particular the lower LW juvenile and all facilities4 shall there- Washington Lee, opinion accomplished fore on or before Janu- (M.D.Ala.1966) was ary 1969. In this connection it not- “unexceptionable” the Su- termed already ed that anticipation underway studies are preme Court in its affirmance. ruling. of this The six Here, motions there are various comply appears months allowed 'to rea- grounds that by the defendants sonable to the court. if properly class constituted this is not plan bona fide necessitates a Any Rule such doubts action under minimal complete, ap- additional time to constituting to the either as plication may be made to this district propriety of the defendants’ class or standing writing court in not later than Decem- representative of a class as 1, 1968, ber for a variance. re- dispelled aspect the cases are to this of gard, exceptional right prison the of au- in the district court the discussion “acting good thorities in faith and in (I opinion. 327 at 329-331 particularized circumstances, to take purpose II). to no It would serve and into account reasoning racial tensions maintain- repeat authorities and such segregated jail ing Accordingly, security, good discipline, as to here. and order properly facilities, we hold that this is prisons jails” and is deemed to exist sides. action on both constituted class normally only after-the-fact and not Otherwise, segregated any before.5 cus- merits, the the defendants On tody subsequent January candidly the effect of the Ala- to admit provides: 4. Defendant The Burson that his motion sheriff insists § Ga.Code 77-108 juvenile pro keep, to shall book dismiss as to detention should a well-bound purpose, all vided for a record of sustained because the statutes involved jail prisoners applicable operation. are committed to the to that county sheriff, which rec of which he is the Fourteenth Amendment’s prohibition person ord name the of racial discrimination exists shall contain the of committed, color, beyond any age, sex, what over and and under statute and paucity process committed, from what while there is a any and of evidence issued, charged, of such discrimination crime the date exists juvenile centers, day jail, cer- of dis it admitted that commitment to Training charge, discharged, tain State still be- under what order Schools are ing issued; operated pend- on a and the court from which it which basis ing subject completion times, shall, to construction. book at all of additional by any person, sher examination and the by Judge 5. The “tank” to situation alluded keep in his office. iff book on file shall opinion and Johnson in the district court provides: person impropriety housing com- No obvious of § Ga.Code 77-9904 together controlling white batants an assault or riot convicts shall confine exceptions together, work constitute “before-the-fact.” colored convicts or Otherwise, danger security, together, to- disci- or chain them them chained work, pline, good presently gether going or at order must exist to or from their segre- apparent justify Any person each and be time. gation. pol- provisions prohibits any violating standard a firm This member of icy segregated custody guilty misde- or of a of this section shall be state, county, or local level. meanor. impracticable bring it shall be deemed violate dictates them all be- ruling Washington court, represent- of this court. fore the and the named fairly atives must be such will insure II. adequate representation of all.” Wright, Courts, largest single employer Federal § in correc- The Georgia is, course, tional work The rule itself allows class ac Presently, State Board Corrections. (1) tion when the class is so numerous only employees of groes. Ne- 13 are some 857 joinder impractic that able; of all members is by the are filled Vacancies (2) questions there are law or under the state Board Corrections class; (3) fact common to the operates system merit representative or claims defenses to the federal “rule threes” common parties typical are of the claims de systems, wherein most state class; (4) repre fenses of the authority hiring from choose is.free parties fairly sentative quately will and ade seen, applicants. em- three certified As protect the interests of class. ployees county Works Public 23(a). Federal Procedure Rules of Civil govern- Camps county thé are named Further, allegedly the 159 Sheriffs ing authorities, mainly appointive an represented by defendants Stinchcombe The on merit basis and few á' basis. alleg- and edly the 72 wardens Williford and employees record is inexact as represented Stanley defendant apparent that most not have but it is do municipalities alleged- and the countless Negro employees. The of each Sheriffs ly represented by defendant Davis are and, by popular are elected vote hiring separate employers. exception, name their own with rare practices vary of each and have deputies. growing A number of Sher- other, connection with each employ throughout iffs the state now superiors. responsible A to different Negro many City deputies, do not. against suit could no more one bind jails by city employees maintained them all against than an claim police depart- usually attached to dealer, one one automobile bak- figures to such ment. The state-wide as any type ery, or one business of could single employees mu- unknown. The are all the other like within bind businesses (Davis) nicipal here defendant has the state. Negro employees. situation, plaintiffs the con- In such a the a on one “Without class Negroes constitute tend that who 56% representative proper hand or a system, prisoners a of right in the state have pursuant other, a to class Rule action Negro hiring the of to demand 23(a) elementary must It that fail. is guards, employees wardens, and other suing in of the ‘an behalf individual all levels. members of the class must be a member single supposed represent.’ However, plaintiff to not a he is class applied Holtzoff, 2 Barron Federal ever & Practice or offered has even witness pris any capacity. 3 job 567 at 308. See for As Procedure a such § Moore, proper they class 23.04.” constitute a Federal Practice oners contesting 215(1) Campbell, Hamer v. 358 F.2d their status. great (5th 1966). Rule latitude class under Cir. While as a purposes they employment ob actions 23 has been allowed class involv Likewise, ing rights, viously re to the civil it is fundamental not. as do injury here, plaintiff sought the some proposed the it is not shown that must show lief higher representative of rise no than are class can named defendants gen plaintiffs proposed “There are two individual class. themselves. Thus, represent requirements for the maintenance cannot a eral part. persons they of constitut class whom are not a Nor suit. a class ing represent could the so numerous that a must be defendants class the class

1011 part. “ancillary jurisdiction” ry v. not a McCabe to the first whom deficiency. Co., supply Ancillary Atchison, 235 U.S. claim T. R. & S. F. 169(6) jurisdiction 69, apply joinder 151, 59 does not to L.Ed. 35 S.Ct. Patterson, Wright, (1914); Bailey U.S. claims Rule 369 Fed- v. 512(1); Courts, 549, 9, juris- 7 L.Ed.2d eral 19 78. The 82 S.Ct. §§ requirements Trustees, 20 187 F.2d dictional must be met to Brown v. Board Drilling, separate (5th 1951); etc. v. Rock each cause of action none Cir. 687(5) present Co., Hanger 217 F.2d is here. & Mason Lucky, (2d 1954); 252 v. Cir. Reddix 930(6) (5th 1958); v. Slack F.2d Cir. III. 1966); (5th Stiner, 65(5) 358 Cir. F.2d Mor- Pacific Yacht Assn. v. Inter-Club ordering The action of this (N.D.Cal. ris, F.Supp. 218(15) 197 desegregation penal institutions 1960); Thompson, Clark 206 v. respects does much answer in all (S.D.Miss.1962) 637 aff’d F.2d 539 313 prac- complaints custodial raised about (5th 1963), den. 375 Cir. cert. U.S. assign- preclude tices. Such order will (1963); 440, 11 L.Ed.2d 84 S.Ct. 313 any type facility, race ment (S.D. Kelly, Anderson 32 355 v. F.R.D. facility, or within reha- La.1963); Kincade, F.R.D. Hackett system. Thus, if effort of the bilitative (1964). good effort is it will shared Thus, prop equally; poor, for the lack of if it it will borne side, prisoners claim er on either equally class second and white black the theo- must be Nor does dismissed.6 alike. unnecessary qualified persons ought situation, this renders

6. While result rights against by need to consider reason not to be discriminated public jobs, con- or state strained we of race state. The inference right that the situation is to note in this area. See that such a exists employment provisions equal City Danville, clear. The v. 337 F.2d 579 Baines specifical- Rights (4th 1964); (2) of the Civil Act are Hen- Cir. Chambers ly inapplicable Education, City “the States United dersonville Board * * * political 1966). (4th or or subdivi- In a State connec- F.2d 189 Cir. 2000e(b). systems merit § sion thereof.” 42 U.S.C.A. local tion the States, agency Nor to United “an take their records should care agency political or sub- on an of a State not discriminate of threes” do “rules account of race. 2000e § division of a State.” U.S.C.A. (c). (But area, elective-appointive No. Executive how- see Order 11246, Sept. entirely political. ever, process federal government.) Despite urging of the must rise fall Each elected official Rights appointed performance that of his Civil Commission amend his coverage states, pre- would to include such exclusion not assistants. The courts policy Governor, President, a remains gress. firm Con- or the to tell the sume Congressman that or there Senator ap- trial, theory At was on or staff advanced limitations his cabinet grants Similarly, pointments. offi- the Fourteenth Amendment a other elected job here) right (such have to a state or local cials as the Sheriffs over any statutory employment fair to such subordinates. above freedom choose provision. legion upholding Negro appointees growing cases are number The The proof employment Georgia dis- lack of fair viola- is that such state laws as not sage. g., politically tive of the E. is Neverthe- Fourteenth Amendment. crimination power less, official Colorado of an elected Anti-Discrimination Commission inviolate, freely appears Continental, 714, appoint v. U.S. 83 S.Ct. 372 1022, (1962). 10 L.Ed.2d 84 is his own choice. risk Congressional Thus, laws, pending ac- of such further absence status logic by courts, question is or clarification not clear and we find tion subject. opinion Amend- that the Fourteenth definitive on the would dictate hybrid, public right to is We are constrained the view ment existing service-competitive- right might such a exist those the civil existing jobs sought and local elective- to be merit area filled appointive service-merit-eompetitive civil area. basis. 1012 Nevertheless, go by further barred law. See Ga.Const. county public 1, and seek to 1, 9; abolish all par. Code, 2-109; art. § Ga. § camps. theory works is advanced Thus, Code long 77-311. it § has been that certain state offer institutions aca- held that penalty hard labor as a programs, demic and trade while the expressly permitted crime by the public camps only physical offer works prohib- Thirteenth Afnendment and not circumstances, labor. Eighth. Under such it ited United States v. Reynolds, contended that hard constitutes labor 133, 149, 86, 235 U.S. 35 S.Ct. punishment cruel and unusual under the ; (1914) 59 L.Ed. 162 Perry, Butler v. Eighth involuntary 328, Amendment and ser- 240 U.S. 36 S.Ct. 60 L.Ed. 672 (1916). vitude Thirteenth Amend- In modern terms the answer succinctly ment. Draper Rhay, stated in v. 315 (9th 1963), F.2d 193 Cir. cert. den. 375 Again there is considerable 915; U.S. 84 S.Ct. 11 L.Ed.2d 153 standing plaintiff’s repre doubt as to (1963). sentative of a class. The court is far federally protected right “There is no prisoners from convinced that at prisoner of a state not to work while county public camps prefer would works imprisoned conviction, after being even inmates at Reidsville State though being ap- the conviction is contrary, Penitentiary. many To the pealed. (hn 3)

prefer comparative freedom, proximity families, gen to their and the requiring prisoner Prison rules eral association less-hardened crim impose work involuntary do not servi- Standing camps. inals the works tude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment, proceed aas class on this basis has not (hn 4) been shown to the satisfaction person A peni- who is held in a state upon pe clearly court and the burden is tentiary county jail may required Johnson, titioner to do so. Chaffee v. to work in accordance with institution 445(9) (S.D.Miss.1964), (hn 7) rules.” 1965). (5th aff’d 352 F.2d 514 Cir. say This is not that an long Moreover, there is a question individual cannot raise the standing policy in of the courts not to particular being his own treatment prison terfere in dis administration rights, violation of his constitutional Johnston, cipline level. Price v. personal each dependent such case is 68 S.Ct. 92 L.Ed. U.S. particular g., facts. E. Jobson v. (1947); Hardwick, Tabor v. Henne, (2d 1966). 355 F.2d 129 Cir. 1955). And, (5th there F.2d 526 Cir. What we hold is that work and labor on must discretion be a clear abuse of be part prisoners is not in itself un fore the will do Walker courts so. constitutional or unlawful. 1966). (5th Blackwell, 360 F.2d 66 Cir. type The location of institution We are not dissuaded from programs established conclusion the fact that Geor gia’s basically penal system matters for determi each are includes an avowed “program appropriate nation administra of rehabilitation.” Ga. Code § course, tors. constitutional 77-319. Of certain Other than the constitutional prison rights rights person follow into state follow a man into confine ment, through duty absolutely the Fourteenth Amendment and no pris is owed a among protection the the oner other ordinary these is than to of exercise Eighth against protection cruel and care keep Amendment for his and to him punishment. a work unusual safe and free from harm. See Cohen v. camp per States, such United does not constitute se pun “inhuman, (N.D.Ga.1966). or tortuous 687 and barbarious cited cases Hu Eighth the mane ishment” violate efforts rehabilitate should not to. specifically discouraged by holding acts are every Amendment. Such that exactly copy prisoner upon in mail of alike must be treated this order the agree- general Corrections, respect. Director of the Board this There is of among experts Youth, re- the Director or federal Children and the ment state garding State, ef- of the extent of rehabilitative several Sheriffs the the War- forts, they dependent upon county public camps, vari- dens of each but works length sentence, police incorporated of chief of able factors such as each training, psychiatric municipality prior persons, evaluations in the state. Such Georgia employees, agents, the like. The new Classifi- their and and subordi- Assignment now un- and Center nates and their in cation successors office are much to make construction should do deemed to of the der be members defendant dependent more effective class the affected this order under Rule prisoner. capabilities (3). upon 23(c) of each and ev- To order the maximum for each hereby of Each said members is sought by plain- ery person confined, as granted days cause, any, if show in here, financially prohibi- tiffs would be writing why ap- said order should not be in a result tive for state and could this plicable party. to such of efforts rather reduction rehabilitative It is further ordered that in- costs implementation. than an proceeding curred in this and against hereby defendants, taxed Accordingly, complaint this is likewise opinion of the Court that dismissed. pay state should such costs. Upon of the consideration within It is so ordered. foregoing petition in accordance date, opinion filed with written this Judge (concurring TUTTLE, Circuit order, judgment It is the and decree part dissenting part). in in of that Code 77- §§ agree 77-108; opinion 310(a); I of the court and 77-9904 be relating desegregation of custodi- are declared of the Fourteenth violative adequately al facilities so treated

Amendment to the Constitution of the Judge opinion. agree I Smith’s also United States to the extent that said present segregation in the of the law require that statutes of the races Georgia. there no relief court can prisons jails which this in the of give response plaintiffs’ Otherwise, demand said statutes shall remain in county public all the court abolish full force and effect. camps, works as dealt with Section It is further ordered that the Director opinion. III of the court’s Corrections, of the Board the Direc- deference, however, I cannot With tor the Board for Children agree complaint, the claim Youth, the several wardens of opin- II public camps, and dealt with Section works several sheriffs ion, properly us for consid- state, jailers is not before several standing part municipal jails, eration for lack of and their successors of ra- office, the issue necessary appropri- raise take the hiring cially practices desegregate steps penal exclusive ate insti- state, State Board Corrections. tutions within the edu- various training programs, ju- cational and agree Ne- I that unless an individual youth centers, aspects venile and and all persons gro aof class of is a member January same or before sought actually denied and been who had by the unless otherwise ordered employment, on the opportunity for an court. potential race, not, he basis of could employee, the issue raise In accordance with Rule this ac- however, hiring Here, policy. adjudged we have tion to be a class ac- Ne- (b) Accordingly, the thousands (1). the issue raised tion gro by registered institu- the correctional inmates of Clerk is directed to serve sys- Policy, correct a In the who ask court to Board’s Basic Proce- tions supervision, Regulations, January, cus- tem under which their tody, dures and dated rehabilitation, following such as it and there are found the in- persons : exists is administered white structions foregoing opinion exclusively. The cor- “Custody security do not con- rectly to the fact that ac- calls attention punishment note and can main- cording to the latest statistics some tained with a constructive employees of Correc- of the State Board designed help prepare rehabilitation Negroes. It are white and 13 tions for a life com- inmates useful in the think, expresses very plain, and, I also necessary, munity after release. ending in caveat footnote “The custodial officer has more con- statement, with the “In this connection with the tact inmates than systems local merit should state and employee Depart- or official take care that their records and ‘rules basically ment. His function re- do not on account of threes’ discriminate strictive but his attitude in race.” performance of his he can functions I think are entitled here significant have a effect in- cautionary to more than the note be- charge. mates in his A firm fair they, cause I think as affected individu- help development attitude will toward als, members of class who respect to, of general for and obedience standing complain present have segregated governing rules the inmate prevalent practice in- in the population. He should bear mind under the control of the stitutions State relating addition to his duties Board of Corrections. custody security he has a defi- policy duty nite It is the of the state assist the overall Department Program.” to make of its of Correc- Treatment rehabilitating system citi- tions a admittedly great gaps While there are adopted provides, zens. One of the rules prisión systems proof in all thus considerations, security “In addition to far adduced in this case indicates that responsibili- duty it shall degree oppor- to which educational ty personnel of all to do ev- correctional training tunities and the of skills are af- erything reasonably power within their desired, forded leaves much to be it is to insure the reformation and rehabilita- true nevertheless that under the state tion of the that he individual inmate so policy duty announced it is the may community return to the as a use- personnel operate who in- custodial ful, abiding law citizen.” Rules cope stitutions to deal with and to such Regulations Governing Operations of problem extent as are able with the State Correctional Institutions rehabilitating Georgia’s prison popu- County Camps Public in the Works lation for useful future life. To this ex- Georgia, State of tent then it seems clear me that the Moreover, report permit adequate proof court should the annual to be July, respect complaint made Board of dated to the Corrections made Department suit, language, found the “The Section II of of- in order that working may diligently to we Corrections is ascertain whether in fact system employees than method of build a correctional selection of —rather maintaining pursued merely prison system.” deprives now the inmates of employees 1. “The State Board of shall welfare of the in- Corrections the State adopt governing assignment, operating authority rules stitutions under its housing, working, county public camps feeding, clothing, treat works ment, highway discipline, rehabilitation, training camps operating under its * * supervision hospitalization prisoners coming Ann. Ga.Code custody. (c). (b) Section 77-307 its adopt “The Board also rules and shall regulations governing the conduct and

1015 rights Fourteenth Amendment basic substantial may “faculties,” persons, confident, rights I to have the we without am training any interruption proper operation and administrative denote dealing rehabilitation, personnel se custodial institutions involved. segregat racially on lected other than a I, therefore, part from dissent that ed This follow from sever basis. would opinion stating, “thus, the lack for. hold that al of courts which decisions side, of a class on either sec- right Negro entirely apart from the aof dismissed,” ond claim because must be non-segregated em to insist on teacher plaintiffs adequately represent their Negro pupils ployment practices, them alleged, and at least Board class as non-segre right have have selves proper party of Corrections is a defend- gated teaching faculty or staff. United employment practices. ant toas its County of Ed v. Jefferson Board States 836, 883-886, ucation, Cir., 5 372 F.2d rehearing banc, 1966, 380 F. on en aff’d 840, 385, 88 S. 2d cert. denied 389 U.S. 67, 103, Lee 1967. v.

Ct. L.Ed.2d Education, County Board of Macon M.D.Ala., F.Supp. 458, page 472, aff’d INTERNATIONAL, BOISE CASCADE nom, States, 389 sub Wallace United v. INCORPORATED, a cor- Delaware U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d poration, Plaintiff, three-judge district District of “It is Middle Alabama said: NORTHERN MINNESOTA PULPWOOD longer open faculty question that ASSOCIATION, un- PRODUCERS incorporated an desegregation integral and staff is an association, Emery desegregation part any public school Carlson, Warpula, Norman and James employ plan because of teachers’ —not Parnham, individually and as officers of rights, ment but because students association, said Defendants. education, entitled to nonracial No. Civ. 5-68 52. assignment of teachers to students United States District Court that basis of race denies students Minnesota, D. right.” Fifth Division. permit I For these reasons would Dec. 1968. plaintiffs complete their statistical seems, might study, which, it demon- complaint of their

strate truth exceptions,2

with some notable defend- operating in the

ants institutions named are, fact, operating

class action system solely by

entire under their care race, of the white an

members whereas average of of the inmates

overall 56% Negro proof are of the If race. facts, opinion

shows such I am of the would be entitled to practice

have ended same manner districts as have those school operated

which on a have their faculties basis. The means accomplished could

this result could be doing developed without violence prison system prejudge I, course, which there has been do intend hiring. as to individual a denial of racial the facts

Case Details

Case Name: Wilson v. Kelley

Court Name: District Court, N.D. Georgia

Date Published: Jun 27, 1968

Citation: 294 F. Supp. 1005

Docket Number: Civ. A. 11647

Court Abbreviation: N.D. Ga.