Morris v. Alabama State Dept. of Industrial Relations, 30227 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 30227 Summary Calendar.,30227 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 435 F.2d 137 |
| Parties | Bettye MORRIS et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALABAMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Linda S. Lombard, Louis A. Mezrano, Birmingham, Ala., Dennis R. Yeager, Douglas Broadwater, New York City, for appellants.
T. W. Thagard, Montgomery, Ala., L. Drew Redden, C. F. Zukoski, Jr., Jerome A. Cooper, Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., for appellees Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity, Raymond Sumrall and G. David Singleton.
Before THORNBERRY, MORGAN and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
Bettye Morris, Betty White and Diane Walker, plaintiffs-appellants, seek reversal of an order entered by the district judge dismissing their complaint against the Jefferson County Committee for Economic Opportunity (hereinafter JCCEO) on the basis of this outline pleading alone. Because we find that the complaint alleges a violation of the United States Constitution, we reverse and remand.
Plaintiffs alleged that they were trainees in the Jefferson County Concentrated Employment Program (hereinafter CEP), a federally financed employment training program. The defendants named were the Alabama State Department of Industrial Relations, Alabama State Employment Service, Alabama State Department of Education, Alabama State Department of Vocational Education, Birmingham Skill Center, Inc., JCCEO, and the various directors and supervisory personnel of these agencies.
In general, the complaint charged that the defendants operated CEP in a manner which created causes of action under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and various contracts. Appellee JCCEO played an integral part in the CEP program since it had the prime contract for the United States Department of Labor, by which the program was funded.
The complaint with specificity attacks the overall effectiveness of CEP by pointing to the disproportionately large number of Negro trainees, the "holding" status employed by CEP, the termination of training allowances, and the discriminatory placing of Negro trainees in menial jobs. Neither the program nor the placement of trainees, they charge, has been equal to that of whites. These allegations, if true, clearly state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
While the reversal rate for all dismissals at the pleading stage is high, Pred v. Board of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boddorff v. Publicker Industries, Inc.
...46 (4th Cir. 1972), Coopersmith v. Supreme Court, State of Colorado, 465 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1972), Morris v. Alabama State Department of Industrial Relations, 435 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1970). 11 See, for example, Scott v. University of Delaware, 385 F.Supp. 937 (D.Del.1974), Sixth Camden Corp......
-
City of Phoenix v. Yarnell
...alleging a civil rights violation. Gobel v. Maricopa County, 867 F.2d 1201, 1203 (9th Cir.1989); see also Morris v. Alabama State Dept. of Indus. Relations, 435 F.2d 137 (5th Cir.1970). FACTS AND PROCEDURAL Victim A, a white female, was sexually assaulted in her Phoenix apartment early on t......
- General Radio Company v. Kepco, Inc.