Tobacco Documents Online

Subject: New Jer ey Bell Telephone No-S~okin~ Suit ~ ,D~~il 6, 1976 To: ~ ~ r. J.s. Dowdell . , • e reports on a legal action brought against the New Jersey Bell Telephone Company and a temporary court injunction granting the plaintiff, an employee, "the right to work in a smoke-free environment" pending a court hearing. FYI, I checked with Jack Roemer Friday to determine if the Institute was assisting in defending this suit as it had in other court actions based upon the alleged health hazards of passive smoking. Jack assumed that Shook, Hardy had been called upon to assist in preparing testimony for use by the attorneys repres'enting New Jersey Bell, and suggested I call Blucher to ascertain if this was correct. Blucher was aware of the suit, but said he had not heard from New Jersey Bell and could not offer Institute assistance with- out specific "Committee of Counsel" approval. He also said he had not brohght the matter to the attention of the Law Committee. I expressed surprise, and said that Jack assumed the Institute would be involved although not as a party in the action" Also, that Jack had volunteered that Davis, Polk represented New York Bell and, therefore, was probably following the New Jersey case closely. Blucher suggested I have Jack contact Davis, Polk to determine their opinion of the probabilities of the injunction being upheld, and requested that Jack call him Monday, the fifth. As Jack had said either he or Max Crohn could get the information from Davis, Polk--and he was out--I told Max what had transpired. Max said he would contact Art Stevens (Lorillard) and have him look into the matter. Max called back this morning to advise that Art Stevens had "taken care of the New Jersey Bell problem." The New Jersey Bell attorney, according to Max, will get in touch with Ehringhaus. Max added that Art had called Blucher and "authorized him" to extend all possible assistance in the New Jersey Bell court proceedings. Hope we are not too late. J.S.D. D/bt