UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
CHERYL LINDSEY SEELHOFF,
a married woman,
Plaintiff, Tacoma, Washington
vs.
PAT and SUE WELCH,
husband and wife,
Defendants.
Docket No. C97-5383FDB
Tacoma, Washington
August 31, 1998
Trial
Volume 1
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE FRANKLIN D. BURGESS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, and a Jury.
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
BARBARA J. DUFFY
GWENDOLYN PAYTON KLEIN
Lane Powell Spears Lubersky
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4100
Seattle, Washington 98101-2338
For the Defendants:
RUDY R. LACHENMEIER
LORI DeDOBBELAERE
Lachenmeier, Enloe & Rall
9600 S.W. Capitol Highway
Portland, Oregon 97219
Court Reporter: Teri Hendrix
Union Station Courthouse, Room 3100
1717 Pacific Avenue
Tacoma, Washington 98402
(253) 593-6545
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
produced by Reporter on computer.
Excerpt from transcripts Volume 1 August 31, 1998 Pages 1-209
How to use these documents.
A complete copy of the transcript are availble on an independent web site.
http://members.aol.com/Hsingcase/index.html
(Link provide by permission)
Documents can be ordered by writing to:
US District Court
Western District of Washington
P.O. Box 1935
Tacoma, Washington 98401
145
1 are identifying a workshop that you were going to be at, did you
2 follow up -- did you have any conversations with her at all?
3 A. Immediately following this exhibit?
4 Q. Yes.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Tell me about those conversations.
7 A. She called me about a week after this, as I recall, with
8 some concerns.
9 MR. LACHENMEIER: Just for the record, I would like to
10 object on relevance. We took this up pretrial.
11 THE COURT: I am not sure what you are saying.
12 MS. DUFFY: I thought we had a stipulation to these
13 exhibits.
14 THE COURT: I believe this is an admissible document.
15 MR. IACHENMEIER: I am sorry, I wasn't objecting to the
16 exhibit at all.
17 THE COURT: Well, let me hear what's being said here.
18 I believe she's talking about what Mrs. Welch said, am I
19 correct?
20 MS. DUFFY: Yes.
21 THE COURT: All right, ask the question.
22 A. She called me and said she was concerned because some
23 people -- I had met her for the first time just previous to her
24 phone call at the Portland winter workshop where I was down
25 giving a workshop. She called me and told me that some people
146
1 had called her and expressed concern that I was being deceptive
2 by not disclosing the fact that I was married to an
3 African-American man and that my family was biracial.
4 She said I should disclose that information to people before
5 I accepted workshop invitations, in some way either by telling
6 them that I was part of a biracial family or by sending a
7 picture of my family to them so they could decide whether they
8 still would like me to come after they knew the racial
9 composition of my family.
10 BY MS. DUFFY:
11 Q. And you are referring to -- when you were down in Portland
12 and you met Mrs. Welch, were you with your husband, Claude
13 Lindsey?
14 A. Yes, I had my whole family there.
15 Q. And your husband Claude Lindsey, he's African-American?
16 A. African-American, yes.
17 Q. At any time did you discuss whether the announcement or the
18 fact that you were having a particular workshop being placed in
19 The Teaching Home, whether that was contingent upon your
20 disclosing this issue about your interracial marriage?
21 A. Yes. She said that if I did not -- in this first phone
22 call, she said that if I did not disclose the fact that I was
23 married to an African-American man, she would not list my
24 workshops in her Teaching Home magazine.
25 Q. Take a look, if you would, at Exhibit No. 16.
147
1 THE CLERK: Counsel, this one is not admitted.
2 THE COURT: That's one we will take up the objection
3 on. Is there an objection to that?
4 MR. LACHENMEIER: Based on your prior ruling, I have no
5 objection.
6 THE COURT: All right, it is admitted.
7 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 16 received in evidence.)
8 MS. DUFFY: The same is true with 17?
9 MR. LACHENMEIER: Yes.
10 THE COURT: So 16 and 17 are admitted, is that correct?
11 MR. LACHENMEIER: Yes.
12 THE COURT: All right.
13 (Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 17 received in evidence.)
14 THE COURT: All right. They are both admitted.
15 BY MS. DUFFY:
16 Q. Did you respond to this contingency that was offered to you
17 by Mrs. Welch?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. Take a look at Exhibit No. 16, if you would.
20 A. I got it.
21 Q. Can you tell me what this exhibit letter is, Exhibit 16?
22 A. This letter follows the conversation I had with Sue where
23 she expressed her concern that I was deceiving people by not
24 disclosing my interracial marriage. I sought counsel after I
25 spoke with her from my attorney and from a couple of other
148
1 people, and I wrote back to her, and this was my letter.
2 Q. Okay. Is it fair to say -- well, in your letter, did you
3 tell her that you would not agree to those terms?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. You would not agree to disclose the fact that your husband
6 was African-American?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Why is that?
9 A. Because I don't believe it is appropriate to concern oneself
10 with the color of skin with the people you are doing business
11 with.
12 Q. Did Mrs. Welch respond at all?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Take a look at Exhibit 17, if you would. Can you identify
15 that document for us?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. What is that?
18 A. A letter to me from Sue Welch dated May 27, 1993.
19 Q. Tell me the gist of the letter of Exhibit 17.
20 A. She is basically saying she has had a change of heart and
21 will continue to publish my speaking engagements.
22 MR. LACHENMEIER: I would object to her characterizing
23 it.
24 THE COURT: Why don't you just read the letter.
25 BY MS. DUFFY: