HERMAN A. BOLL, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ST. LOUIS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court's findings of fact regarding the reason for discharge and contract compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous.
An employee appealed his discharge from the Federal Reserve Bank, claiming it was due to his complaint about denied overtime pay. The district court f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fair Labor Standards Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Herman A. Boll, a former assistant examiner employed by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, appeals from the District Court’s finding of fact as to the reason for his discharge from the Bank and its holding that his employment contracts with the Bank complied with the “Belo” provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.1 29 U.S.C. § 207(f) (1970).
Boll contends that he was discharged from employment with the Bank because he complained to officials that he had been denied certain overtime pay and threatened to file proceedings against the Bank under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The District Court found that Boll was not discharged for the reasons he alleged, but that his discharge
* * * was the result of year-end reports made by bank examiners which indicated that [Boll] was unable to cooperate with his fellow employees and caused irritating incidents with bankers whose banks were being examined.
365 F.Supp. 637, 650 (E.D.Mo.1973).
This finding is supported by substantial evidence, is not clearly erroneous and, thus, may not be set aside by this Court.
We are also satisfied that the District Court did not err in concluding that the contracts between Boll and the Bank complied with Section 7(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. § 207(f). It made no error in law in reaching this conclusion, and its findings of fact on this issue are not clearly erroneous.
Affirmed.
. The case was tried below to the court, and the decision is reported in 365 F.Supp. 637 (E.D.Mo.1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Laffey v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 567 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
-
Bush v. State Indus., Inc., 599 F.2d 780 (6th Cir. 1979)
-
Boehm v. Kan. City Power & Light Co. & W.H. Miller, 868 F.2d 1182 (10th Cir. 1989)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence