hout UNCONSULILULJgRlickds ~v== == -
plications are accepted.
rdod thom, Af their ap
e fact that plaintiffs have cntcred
Nor <o we think that th
o contracts with the achool board for the current ycar at the
¢ fixed by the discriminatory practice precludes then from asking
iof. What the effect of such contracts nmay be on right to com-
sation for the current year, wc necd not decide, since plaintiffs
. not insisting upon additional compensation for the currcnt ycar
| their prayer for relief asks a broad declaration of rights and
unctive relief for the future. As qualified teachers holding
tificates, they have rights as above indicated which arc not
fined to the ccntract for the current ycar, i.e. the right to
1y for positions in the futurce and to have the Board award the
itions without unconstituticnal discrininaticn as to the rate of
The defendants take the position that no one but a tescher
ding a contract with thec Board has any such interest in the rate
pay as would give him standing to suc conccrning it, and thet he
not sue because he has walved the unconstitutional discrimination
entering into the contract. If this were sound, there would be no
ctical necans of redress for tcachcrs subjected to the unconsti-
ional discrinination. But 1t is not sound. Ag pointed out in
st Trucking Co. v, Railroad Com. 271 U.S. 583, 59U, even in the
nting of a privilege, the statc "may not lmpose conditions which
uire the relinquishment of constituticnal rights., If thc state
- gompel the surrender of onc constituticnal right as a condition
its favor, it may, in like manner, conpel a surrender of all. 3%
inconceivable that guarantics embedded in the Constitution of the
ted Stotes may thus be manipulated out of ecxistence." Sec also
olg uy.s. 67,69,70; Hanovor
on Pac. R. Co. V. Public Scrvice Con.
;:fi2::;i:éEsE!!EPa*a-“—5*—“9“v—594——-3ufi—a‘~4b.tadfl‘hafla*_fih‘-___-_;__,,.
vor could not extend beyond the terns of the contract for thce
in nny avent. and the rclieflf asked 1is for the declara-
mont yoowm,
n and protcction of rights which extend beyond any prescnt coploy=
.
¢ should say, too, that we have no doubt as to the Norfolk
.chers Amsociation being a proper party to the suit. According to
y conmplaint, it 1s a voluntary unincorporated asrociation and
s conposcd cf Negro teachers ané principals in the public colorcad
hools of Norfolk"; and the right of such an agssociation to suc in
s cormon nane for the purposc of enforcing substantive rights under
