-
Title
-
EWP 1 Parker (6)
-
EWP Parker (6)
-
Tag
-
school teachers, equal pay, discrimination, race, unconstitutional, compensation, civil right, discriminatory legislation, contracts, constitutional rights
-
Place
-
Virginia
-
Identifier
-
1000774
-
Is Version Of
-
1000774_EWP_Parker_(6).JPG
-
1000774_EWP_Parker_(6).pdf
-
Is Part Of
-
Uncategorized
-
Date Created
-
2024-01-07
-
2024-07-22 19:27:11 +0000
-
Format
-
Jpeg Image
-
Number
-
d1b9036a14fdaaab085d271c75cfcc03913ebca9624c85ebba42d74cf9411401
-
fe4e6c45ce9877fa0c329b9efdbed3597330e619823e4242b805404fa1dff58e
-
59bf7733da83e999a433042079bba3d5272d8428a8aa3742a011535209dd0eee
-
Source
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/Access Files/Upload temp/1000774_EWP_Parker_(6).JPG
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/Access Files/jpg to pdf/need to upload or replc files to omeka/1000774_EWP_Parker_(6).pdf
-
Publisher
-
Digitized by Edwin Washington Project
-
Rights
-
Loudoun County Public Schools
-
Language
-
English
-
Replaces
-
/Volumes/T7 Shield/EWP/Elements/EWP_Files/source/Ingest One/1 Civil Rights/LCPS_African_Educ_Folder/EWP_Parker_(6).JPG
-
extracted text
-
he ~ -2 s 24 32 B o
hm'e,ths,:“cf:?;;t:fn for positions for whlig they.may apply, an@ Wh;ch will
ng:*“;;.ibl} ne awarded to some of them, fixed without unconstitutional
discriminotion on account of race, As pointed out by Judge Chestnut, in
Kills v. Lowndes, supra, they are qualificd school teachers and have the
civil right, as such, to pursue their profession without being subjected
to discriminatory legislation on aecount of race or color. It is no answer
to this to say that the hiring of any teacher is a matter resting in the
dilseretion of the school authorities. -Plaintiffs; as teachers qualified
and subject to cmployment by thc state, arc cntitled to apply for the posi-
tions and to have thc discretion of the authorities excrcised lawfully and
et crak e et dbabloine Ao caxdmdaaatbidora o - < - o
them, it their appiicatiofis are accépted; T e I N
Nor do we think that the fact that plaintiffs have entered into
contracts with the school board for the curremt year at the rate fixed by
the discriminatory practice precludes them from asking relief. What the
effect of such contracts may be on right to compensation for the current
year, we need not decide, since plaintiffs are not insisting upon addi-
tional compensation for the current year and their prayer for relief asks
a broad declaration of rights and injunctive relief for the future. As
qualified teachers holding certificates, they have rights as above indicated
which are not confined to the contract for the current year, i. e, the right
to apply for positions in the future and to have the Board award the posi-
tions without unconstitutional discrimination as to the rate of pay.
The defendants take the position that no one but a teacher hold-
ing a contract with the Board has any such interest in the rate of pay as
would give him standing to suc concerning it, and that he cannot suc because
he has waived the unconstitutional discrimination by entering into the con-
tract. If this were sound, thcre would be no practical means of redress
for teachers subjccted to the unconstitutional discrimination. But 1¢ is
not sound. As pointed out in Frost Trucking Co. v. Hailroad Com. 271 U. S.
583, 594, even in the granting of a privilege, the state "may not impose
conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights, If
the state may compel the surrender of one- constitutional right as a condi-
tion of its favor, it may, in like manncr, compel a surrender of alde It
is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United
States may thus be manipulated out of existence." See also Union Pac, R.
Co. V. Public-Service Com, 248 U. S. 67,69,70; Hanover Ins. Co, V. Harding
272 U. 5. 494, 507, But as stated above, thc wailver could not extend be-
yond the terms of the contract for the current year, in any cvent, and the
relicf asked is for the declaration and protection of rights which extend
beyond any present employment .
We should say, too, that we have no doubt as to the Norfolk
Teachers Association being a propcr party to the suit, According to the
