Dawley v. City of Norfolk, Virginia
159 F.Supp. 642 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legal challenge to state-sponsored segregation in a public building will fail if the lawsuit is brought against government officials who do not have the legal authority and control over the building's maintenance and administration.
Facts:
- A courthouse building in Norfolk, Virginia, was used exclusively by four state courts and their judges.
- The courthouse contained four public restrooms with signs designating them for 'White Women,' 'Colored Women,' 'White Men,' and 'Colored Men.'
- The plaintiff, a Black attorney practicing in Norfolk, used this courthouse for his work.
- It was conceded by the plaintiff that the segregated restroom facilities were equal in every physical respect.
- The restrooms were open during daylight hours and used by jurors, attorneys, witnesses, parties, and judges having business in the courts.
- No state statute or city ordinance imposed a criminal penalty on individuals for using a restroom designated for a different race.
Procedural Posture:
- A Black attorney filed an action for a declaratory judgment and a mandatory injunction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The lawsuit was filed against officials of the City of Norfolk, including the City Manager, Director of Public Safety, and Director of Public Works.
- The plaintiff sought to have the court order the defendants to remove racially discriminatory signs from courthouse restroom doors.
- Both the plaintiff and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
- The defendants also filed a motion to dismiss.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the maintenance of signs designating separate-but-equal restrooms for 'White' and 'Colored' persons in a state courthouse violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoffman, J.
No, the maintenance of the signs does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment in this action. The court dismissed the case primarily because the plaintiff sued the wrong defendants. Under Virginia state law, control over the courthouse building rests with the state court judges, not the city officials (City Manager, Director of Public Safety, Director of Public Works) named as defendants. Therefore, the court cannot grant relief because an order against these defendants would be ineffective, as the state judges could simply order the signs reinstalled. The court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that the signs create a 'feeling of inferiority' under Brown v. Board of Education, deeming the comparison of school segregation to physically equal restroom facilities an absurdity. The court reasoned that the intangible considerations central to Brown—the ability to study and exchange views with other students—do not apply to the use of toilet facilities.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the judicial resistance and narrow interpretation of Brown v. Board of Education in the years immediately following that landmark decision. It shows how lower courts could use procedural grounds, such as suing the incorrect party, to avoid addressing the substantive constitutional question of segregation in public facilities. The court's distinction between the 'sociological' harm of school segregation and the 'absurdity' of applying the same logic to restrooms highlights a reluctance to expand Brown's anti-segregation principle beyond the specific context of education. While ultimately overruled by later precedent, this opinion reflects a common judicial approach during the era of 'massive resistance' to desegregation.
Unlock the full brief for Dawley v. City of Norfolk, Virginia