◆ SpookStack

, ee . . -. injunctions against klans and klansmen engaged in intimidation and violence burdening commerce. United States v. 7. 3." Flans, inD.RLs. 1961, 194 F. Supp. 897; Plummer v. Brock, M.D.Fla. 1964, 9 R.Rel.L. Rep. 1359. See also United States v. City of Jackson, 5 Ciz. 1563, 318 F.2d. 1. . + : (3) The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Equal Employment Oppor- tunities. Title VII, like Title II, is based upon the commerce clause. The term “industry affecting commerce” used in Title vit parallels the definition of "industry affecting commerce” in the UMRDA (29 U.S.c. 402 (c)}. This in turn incorporates the definition of “affecting ‘comerce” in the NLRA (29 U.S.C. 152 (7})}. “The National Labor Relations Act represents an exercise of congressional regulatory power to “the fullest jurisdictional breadth constitu- tionally permissible under the Commerce Clause," NLRB v. Reliance _Puel Corp., 1963, 371 U.S. 224, 225; Polish National Alliance v. a TT + Ls NLRB, 1944, 322 °U.5. 643, 64 applicable to Title vIr. The sweeping regulations in the SLRA and LMRDA covering the terms, conditions, and policies of hiring and bargaining do not differ in any essential respect from this legislation prohibiting discrimination in hiring practices and on the job assignments. The employer-employee relationship has, of course, direct effect upon the production of industries which are in commerce and upon the practical utilization of the labor force and the power of Congress + to regulate these activities cannot be doubted. NLRB v. Jones & —— Laughlin Steel Corp., 1936, 301 U.S. 1; NLRB v. Fainblatt, 1939, 7 7 A —_——_ 306 U.S. $01, 606; Mabee v. White Plains Publishing Co., 1946, 327 U.S. 178. Defendants admit that they peat and threatened Negro pickets ae te preven: -them from enjoying the right} equal employment opportunity.