Strain v. Philpott

331 F. Supp. 836
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedSeptember 1, 1971
DocketCiv. A. 840-E
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 331 F. Supp. 836 (Strain v. Philpott) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Strain v. Philpott, 331 F. Supp. 836 (M.D. Ala. 1971).

Opinion

OPINION

FRANK M. JOHNSON, Chief Judge.

This class action claims violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, 42 U. S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 2000d, and 7 U. S.C. § 341 et seq. Subject matter jurisdiction arises from 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3) and (4), 1346 and 1361. The plaintiffs are all Negro citizens of the State of Alabama and include a Negro employee of the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service (ACES), and Negro farm operators and other rural residents who are beneficiaries or potential bene-ficiaries of extension services in the-State of Alabama; they represent classes of Negro employees of ACES, Negro members or potential members of 4-H and Home Demonstration Clubs, and all Negroes who are allegedly denied equal services or excluded from positions in the operation of ACES.

The complaint seeks relief against Harry M. Philpott, as President of Auburn University; Dr. Fred R. Robertson, as Vice-President for Extension of Auburn University and as Director of the ACES; the Board of Trustees of Auburn University; and the Board of Revenue (or Board of Commissioners) of each Alabama County.

Upon plaintiffs’ motion, the complaint was dismissed as to Secretary of Agriculture Hardin and Administrator of the Federal Extension Service Edwin L. Kirby. Simultaneously the Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1 filed a certificate to the effect that the case was of general public importance. Accordingly, the United States sought and was granted intervention as a party plaintiff.

The thrust of the plaintiffs’ complaint is: (1) that ACES has provided and continues to provide its services on a racially segregated and discriminatory basis; (2) that the ACES has discriminated and continues to discriminate against Negroes in hiring and promotion and in the terms and conditions of employment; (3) that the ACES has maintained and continues to maintain racially segregated 4-H and home demonstration clubs; and (4) that the ACES discriminated against plaintiff Strain solely on the basis of race in the filling of the position of Chairman of the Division of Information of the ACES.

The case is now submitted upon the several issues formulated by the pleadings, the evidence and the briefs. The evidence consists of extensive exhibits and depositions offered in support of and in opposition to the respective contentions of the parties. This Court, as *838 authorized by Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, now incorporates in this memorandum opinion the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.

I

Auburn University, formerly Alabama Polytechnic Institute, is a land-grant university located in Auburn, Alabama. On January 29, 1915, it was designated by the Alabama Legislature as the land-grant college to receive state and federal funds for the operation of a cooperative extension service in the State of Alabama. In order to qualify for federal funds for extension work, the State of Alabama must provide matching funds. All 67 counties in Alabama also contribute funds for the operation and maintenance of extension services.

The Alabama Cooperative Extension Service is the state administrative agency which carries the responsibility for the execution and coordination of cooperative services in the State. At the apex of the agency in title and authority is the State Director who is responsible to the President of Auburn University and its Board of Trustees for the complete and comprehensive administration of the ACES. This position has always been filled by a white person.

The parties have stipulated that prior to June 7, 1965, ACES provided and maintained á dual system of services and benefits which was constructed on a racial basis. Thus, there was a white extension service and a similarly structured, but entirely separate, extension service for Negroes. Each branch served a clientele almost exclusively of its same race.

The Negro branch of the ACES was headquartered in Tuskegee and had county offices in 35 counties from at least 1960 to 1965. There have been 30 counties since 1960 which never had a Negro county office and which have not had a Negro professional on the county staff from 1965 to the present.

For the purposes of administering its programs, the Negro branch divided the state in half, which resulted in a Northern district, comprising the northern half of the state, and a Southern district, comprising the southern half of the state.

Heading the entire Negro branch was the position of “State Leader for Negro Extension Work.” The Negro occupying this position was responsible directly to the Director for the over-all administration of the extension programs conducted by Negro personnel for Negro farmers, homemakers and youth. His responsibilities included making recommendations to the director with regard to the hiring, assignment, promotion, transfer, discipline, discharge and salary increases for all Negro personnel. Final decisions on all personnel matters regarding Negro employees were made by the Director.

Directly responsible to the State Leader for Negro Extension Work were the two Negro District Agents and the two Negro District Home Demonstration Agents. The Negro District Agent, which by custom was a male position, was responsible for the administration of Negro extension farm programs and 4-H programs for Negro boys in his district and also for general supervision of Negro male personnel in his district. Although the Negro District Agent had the duty of seeking qualified Negro males to work in the Negro branch and recommending them to the State Leader, the actual appointment of the Negro personnel was made by the Director. Existing policies gave the Negro District Agent no authority or responsibility for contacting county governing bodies for appropriations or other matters relating to extension programs. This authority and responsibility was delegated to the white District Agent.

The Negro Home Demonstration Agent, a female position, was given the task of administering the Negro Extension Home Economies programs and 4-H programs for Negro girls in her district and also was responsible for general supervision of Negro female personnel in her district. She sought qualified Ne *839 gro females for work within the Negro branch, but, as in the case of the Negro District Agent, had no role in their actual appointment.

At the county level were the Negro County Agents and the Negro Home Demonstration Agents. As with their district counterparts, these positions were for males and females respectively.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Knight v. State of Ala.
787 F. Supp. 1030 (N.D. Alabama, 1991)
United States v. State of Alabama
628 F. Supp. 1137 (N.D. Alabama, 1985)
United States v. Dallas County Commission
548 F. Supp. 794 (S.D. Alabama, 1982)
Whitfield v. Oliver
399 F. Supp. 348 (M.D. Alabama, 1975)
Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education
377 F. Supp. 1123 (M.D. Alabama, 1974)
Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service
372 F. Supp. 126 (N.D. Mississippi, 1974)
United States v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.
338 F. Supp. 532 (W.D. North Carolina, 1971)
Castro v. Beecher
334 F. Supp. 930 (D. Massachusetts, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 F. Supp. 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strain-v-philpott-almd-1971.