28
Oral History of Katherine Mazzaferri
This interview is being conducted on behalf of the Oral History Project of The Historical Society
of the District of Columbia Circuit. The interviewer is Annamaria Steward, and the interviewee
is CEO Emeritus of the D.C. Bar Katherine A.Mazzaferri. The interview took place on Sunday,
June 11, 2023. This is the fourth chapter.
MS. STEWARD: Katherine, you graduated from law school in 1972. What did you do
afterwards?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: Yes. I took the D.C. bar exam and passed it and then went to work full
time at the EEOC in its Trial Division. The agency had just gotten its
court enforcement authority in 1972, and I worked on some of the very
first cases. Some of them were new cases, and some were enforcement
actions, enforcing cases that had been litigated by the Department of
Justice.
One case that was very interesting was an enforcement action
against a longshoreman’s Local in Baltimore. The case had been handled
by the Department of Justice. It had been tried before Judge Alexander
Harvey in the Federal District Court in Baltimore. He had decided the case
in 1970 and issued a decree in February of 1971. The case was affirmed
by the 4th Circuit and the Supreme Court denied certiorari. So, we had an
order, and my job was to figure out what was happening. In my
investigation, I realized that not many things had changed.
And just to pause for a minute, in handling an enforcement case as
a new attorney, I initially assumed it was going to be kind of a boring case
and there wouldn’t be much to do. That could not have been further from
the truth. It turned out to be a fascinating case at so many levels, the law,
29
the individuals, and trying to be creative to bring about the kind of results
that the judge had ordered initially.
MS. STEWARD: Tell us about the case. What was happening with the longshoremen in
Baltimore?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: The Department of Justice had brought the case because there had been
two separate labor unions, a black union and a white union. The white
longshoremen were getting the more desirable jobs. They were working
longer hours, so they were getting paid better.
The judge ordered that the labor unions be combined. The concept
of merging the labor unions was that the work gangs would be integrated,
and the work would be doled out more fairly. Judge Harvey had prohibited
discrimination based on race and had ordered that jobs should be filled in
order of seniority and that all the temporary jobs should be handled out of
the central dispatch center, the hiring hall. He also had retained
jurisdiction to alter the order if necessary.
My job was to figure out what was happening. I did an initial
investigation and realized that not much had changed since the order was
issued. When I spoke with the Department of Justice lawyer who had
handled the case, he gave me the background. He told me that this was a
difficult case and that the individuals involved, some of the white
longshoremen, were not happy about the case. He warned me that I
probably would not have a warm reception when I met with the
longshoreman board, and he was right.
30
But that’s what I did. I went with Ada Blount, a paralegal from the
EEOC, to Baltimore to meet with the board. The president was the former
president of the white union, and the vice president was the former
president of the black union. The remaining members were white
longshoremen. They told me that when the last government lawyer came
to see them, they had asked him to leave. I knew it was true. But I told
them that my job was to understand what was happening and to encourage
them to make the changes that the court had ordered several years earlier.
To further my investigation, I went to the hiring hall one morning
because I wanted to see for myself. I think it’s important as a lawyer to
understand the facts of the case in all ways. So at 6:00 or so in the
morning, I went to the hiring hall in Baltimore. I was shocked because I
saw only black longshoreman waiting for work. That meant all the
temporary jobs that were held by white longshoremen had been doled out
in some other way; it wasn’t through this hiring hall.
Also, this was part of my education. Some of the black
longshoreman leaders told me they didn’t really want integrated work
gangs. They just wanted a fair share of the work. They explained that the
shipping system was containerized. They told me that being in the hole,
waiting for the container to be lowered, you wanted to have somebody
above whom you trusted. So, from the perspective of the black
longshoremen, they just wanted a fair share of the good-paying jobs, and
that simply wasn’t happening.
31
I wound up going back to my team at the EEOC, and we puzzled
over this and realized that we really needed to bring in the stevedoring
companies. There were fifteen or so major stevedoring companies that
were part of the system. If they were doling out jobs in a different way
than the judge had ordered, then they needed to be part of the answer to
this difficult problem. So we brought an action that would enjoin the
stevedoring companies from interfering with this court order and would
have them be included in this enforcement action.
This case involved a pretty novel and challenging legal issue. I
briefed this issue and argued the motion before the federal judge. Later
that same day, Judge Harvey read his opinion from the bench and agreed
with the government on this.
This case taught me so many things. Number one, not to judge a
case before you know everything about it. It was a fascinating, difficult,
complex case in terms of the legal issues and the individuals involved.
And I had assumed that it would be routine, but it was anything but that. I
think what was helpful to me was the idea that sometimes you must be
creative to figure out solutions in the law, and sometimes the law is ahead
of society, which is something I’ve mentioned before. And although I’m
not sure that I fixed the long-standing problems here, it was an honor for
me to try to be part of the solution and part of the remedy for this difficult
case.
32
MS. STEWARD: I want to ask you, because you mentioned that you went up there and you
met with these longshoremen. You had just graduated from law school as
one of the very few female law students and then presumably you were
one of the very few female lawyers at this time. They sent you up to meet
with the longshoremen, who had already turned away a government
attorney, and that was the first thing they said to you. So what were you
thinking when you went up there and met with these people? Why were
you not afraid of meeting with these longshoremen about a very hot issue
that was affecting their livelihood?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: I was afraid. There was one particular longshoreman who called me on a
regular basis, a white guy who was very unhappy about the litigation. He
had threatened Judge Harvey, and, as a result, he was prohibited from
entering the federal courthouse in Baltimore. I never met him, but it turns
out he came to my office one day and met with my supervisor. And,
ironically, I had passed him in the doorway as I was leaving the office for
lunch that day. He made his views clear to my supervisor, so I knew there
was at least that person who was very unhappy.
In addition, one evening we were going to drive to Baltimore to
interview some of the black longshoremen. An attorney who was handling
a private litigation had made his office available for us to conduct the
interviews. Before we left for Baltimore, we received a threatening phone
call saying that if we came, something might happen to us and they’d be
waiting for us.
33
This was 1972. It was the beginning of the women’s movement,
and I was active at the Women’s Legal Defense Fund. I didn’t feel I could
say that I was afraid. I thought the only thing that I could do was to do my
best to protect my team. As we left for Baltimore that evening, for
example, I said to the team, “we’re going to drive together, we’re going to
park together, we’re going to walk together, and we’re going to leave that
office together. Nobody goes solo.” And that’s what we did, and it turned
out fine. But it was a scary time.
One time I went on the waterfront to interview some of the black
longshoremen, and the head of the Local challenged me. He told me I had
no authority to be there.
I reached back to my memory of my Aunt Carolyn in Philadelphia
who had taken me to some housing discrimination demonstrations and had
said to me that you should never look afraid. You should look brave and
feel brave and know that the law is on your side. And that’s how I felt
when this man confronted me. I told him that I represented the United
States government and that I was entitled to interview these witnesses. I
asked him to stand down, and after some back and forth he eventually did.
It taught me a lot about people and a little bit about myself too.
MS. STEWARD: You interviewed these people, so tell me how this wrapped up in the end.
MS. MAZZAFERRI: I think we made some changes. I don’t know that this is really fixed, even
today. I think discrimination of this sort is extremely difficult to untangle.
34
I felt good that I was able to move the ball further. I don’t know whether I
moved it all the way.
MS. STEWARD: This was your first experience as an attorney at the EEOC?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: Yes.
MS. STEWARD: I imagine it was such a life-changing experience. What other cases had a
strong impact on you during that time?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: Another case I brought was a race and gender case against a paper
company in Memphis, and it was clear discrimination. Before Title VII
was effective, there were literally black jobs and white jobs, women jobs
and men jobs. Under the Civil Rights Act, this was a pretty clear-cut case,
and the race case was very straightforward.
The gender case was a little bit more complicated because of the
way the company had implemented changes after the Civil Rights Act was
amended to include gender. The company had rated jobs as “light,”
“medium,” and “heavy,” and then rated the employees the same way. The
women would go to the company doctor, and the doctor would ask them if
they wanted him to rate them as “heavy.” And they’d say no, so the
doctor would rate them as “light.” Then the jobs were rated, and of course
the lowest-paying jobs were the “light” jobs, and the highest paying jobs
were the “heavy” jobs.
So, once again, I decided to go and see for myself what the plant
looked like. I asked to see the machine tender job, which was one of the
highest paid jobs. The machine tender was sitting on top of a very high
35
stool. There was a big red button in front of him, and if there was a
problem on the line, his job was to press the button. I thought to myself
that clearly the system needed to be modified, and the “light,” “medium,”
and “heavy” ratings didn’t necessarily mean what we had thought they did.
They were such brave people, the African American and the
women complainants with whom I met in this case. They were
extraordinary individuals. I think in this case we were able to make
changes, the law was able to be implemented effectively, and it was very
satisfying.
MS. STEWARD: Can you tell me about your work with Beatrice Rosenberg?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: One other side note about the manufacturing case I mentioned was that at
the EEOC, the head of the Appellate Division was Beatrice Rosenberg.
She had come from the Department of Justice where she had been the
Deputy Chief of the Criminal Appellate Division. The EEOC had newly
received enforcement authority, so her role at the EEOC was a new
position. For the trial division, Bea Rosenberg was asked to review all our
briefs that addressed procedural issues so that there could be consistency
across the circuits.
In my case there was a summary judgment motion that was headed
to the Sixth Circuit, so Bea reviewed my brief. This was a moment of true
fear for me to bring my little baby brief upstairs to the Appellate Division
to present it to Bea Rosenberg.
36
You’ve heard all about Bea. She had those big scissors and her
stapler and her big messy scrawl. She literally cut my brief up, put it back
together, wrote on it, and said to me, about certain arguments, “Don’t
make that argument, it’s silly.” She was very sharp, but clear, and, of
course, she made my brief sing. It was a true honor to have her be part of
my education.
One more story about Bea: a few of us went to watch Bea argue
one of the EEOC cases before the D.C. Circuit, and she was treated with
such respect by the judges. She was a very gifted lawyer. Bea Rosenberg
was one of my heroes. She was smart and principled and taught lawyers
what was important about being a lawyer, especially a government lawyer.
Bea passed away in 1989, and I was then at the D.C. Bar, and
Chuck Ruff was the Bar president. He had worked for Bea at Justice. He
and I decided that we needed to figure out a way to honor her. She was so
special. So we came up with the Beatrice Rosenberg Award, which the
D.C. Bar presents to an individual who has been in government service
long-term and who follows some of the principles that Bea embodied as
her legacy. It was a wonderful moment for me to have a way to keep her
memory alive.
MS. STEWARD: How long were you at the EEOC?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: I was there for about three-plus years. I was there until 1975.
37
MS. STEWARD: So you went from GW Law School, where you started working on the
Women in the Law courses, and then you went over to the EEOC. What
other activities did you engage in?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: Judy Lichtman was then the executive director of what was then the
Women’s Legal Defense Fund, now the National Partnership for Women
and Families. Judy and I wound up teaching the first Women in the Law
course at Antioch Law School. I had been active in successfully getting
that course started at GW when I was a student there, and it was a treat to
be able then to teach the class. And, of course, teaching with Judy
Lichtman was very special. She’s an extraordinary lawyer and a friend,
and it felt very good to be able to pass that information along to the next
generation of law students.
MS. STEWARD: You were expanding the impact of what you all created at GW back when
you were a law student.
MS. MAZZAFERRI: Right.
MS. STEWARD: When you look back on your career, your years at the EEOC, what’s your
impression of that time of your life? What are the lessons you learned
professionally and personally?
MS. MAZZAFERRI: I really saw first-hand how damaging workplace discrimination can be in
so many different types of industries, and I was so impressed, as I
mentioned, with the complaining witnesses I interviewed. They were
extraordinary people who had tough lives and tough jobs and yet they had
the strength to speak out.
38
The impact of discrimination stayed with me. Especially in my job
at the D.C. Bar where I had management responsibilities, I really strove to
look for diversity, to consider individuals’ diversity, because I think that
makes the workplace better. I strove to do that both with the staff and with
volunteers. I think my early experience at the EEOC really made an
impression on me about the importance of diversity and fairness.
MS. STEWARD: Thank you, Katherine.