02-03-1971 Correspondence from Brennan to Blackmun

Dear Harry: My vote would be not to resort to the certification procedure to ask the proposed question. For me, the portion of the oath referred to is unconstitutional even if interpreted as suggested by the question

06-30-1986 Justice Brennan, Per Curiam

These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners\u27 action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiff \u27s discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F. 2d 662 (CA4 1984). We hold, for the reasons stated in the opinion of JUSTICE BRENNAN, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. the Extension Service had no duty to eradicate salary disparities between white and black workers that had their origin prior to the date

06-10-1971 Correspondence from Brennan to Harlan

Dear John: While I still think that the so-called Stromberg ground of Sicurella would be enough to reverse this conviction, I am persuaded by your opinion that the otheraspect of Sicurella also requires reversal. I, therefore, would be happy to haveyou join me

03-24-1988 Correspondence from Brennan to Rehnquist

Dear Chief, Please join me

07-01-1986 Per Curiam

These cases present several issues arising out of petitioners\u27 action against respondents for alleged racial discrimination in employment and provision of services by the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service). The District Court declined to certify various proposed classes and, after a lengthy trial, entered judgment for respondents in all respects, finding that petitioners had not carried their burden of demonstrating that respondents had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. The District Court also ruled against each of the individual plaintiff \u27s discrimination claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 751 F. 2d 662 (CA4 1984)

02-02-1977 Correspondence from Brennan to Rehnquist

John\u27s dissent suggests more problems with this case than I had fully appreciated and I am going to do some more thinking about it. As a minimum I think his Part III is well taken. I had not discerned that the Court of Appeals had not passed on the property interest claim. I think John\u27s disposition could be incorporated in your Per Curiam and do it no damage

02-09-1977 Correspondence from Brennan to Rehnquist

Dear Bill: I had originally intended to dissent but defected and joined your Per Curiam. That, however, was before John circulated his subversive dissent. You can therefore credit (or blame) him for my defection back to my original decision, reflected in the enclosed

01-25-1977 Justice Brennan, Concurring

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring. I join the Court\u27s opinion but add these words for emphasis

Justice Brennan, Dissenting

Justice Brennan\u27s draft opinion on Illinois v. Gates