Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.
| Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Full case name | Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. |
| Citations | 390 U.S. 400 (more) |
| Court membership | |
| Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. 390 U.S. 400 (1968), is a 1968 United States Supreme Court case in which the court held, per curiam, that following a successful effort to obtain an injunction under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that attorney's fees under § 204(b) were generally recoverable.
Piggie Park Enterprises was, in 1964, a drive-in BBQ chain with four restaurants, created and operated by Maurice Bessinger, the Baptist head of the National Association for the Preservation of White People. Bessinger's restaurants did not allow African-Americans to eat in the restaurant. Following Bessinger's refusal to allow Anne Newman, an African-American minister's wife into his restaurant, then-lawyer Matthew J. Perry filed a class action lawsuit against the chain.
Perry's lawsuit was first heard in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina with Charles Earl Simons, Jr. presiding.
The plaintiffs argued that Piggie Park's exclusion of African-Americans constituted a violation of Title II. The defendant Bessinger denied the discrimination, denied that the restaurants were public accommodations in the meaning of the Act (as did not, in his view, involve interstate commerce), and argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever." Simons held the Act did not apply to drive-in restaurants, but did apply to Bessinger's sandwich shop. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the lower court and remanded the case back to the district court, instructing that court to "award counsel fees 'only to the extent that the respondents' defenses had been advanced "for purposes of delay, and not in good faith."' The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the question of whether the exclusion for good-faith defense was correct.
...
Wikipedia