THOMAS C. HALL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
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 Board's refusal to consider an employee's alibi defense solely because it was presented late constitutes a denial of fundamental due process.
An employee was discharged and appealed to a System Board of Adjustment, which upheld the decision. The employee appealed to the district court, alleg…
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.
PER CURIAM:
On September 19, 1973, Eastern Air Lines discharged Thomas C. Hall for leaving work early without company approval. He filed a grievance and a hearing was held before the company’s Mechanical Department System Board of Adjustment, a body established pursuant to 45 U.S.C. § 184. The Board upheld the discharge decision, and Hall appealed to the district court, alleging he had been denied fundamental due process because the Board refused to consider his alibi defense.
The district court recognized that its scope of review is limited. See 45 U.S.C. § 153, First (q). In general the Board’s decision on the merits is final and not subject to review. Gunther v. San Diego & Arizona Eastern Ry. Co., 382 U.S. 257, 86 S.Ct. 368, 15 L.Ed.2d 308 (1965). However, review is not absolutely foreclosed where petition er alleges a denial of fundamental due process. See Rosen v. Eastern Air Lines, 400 F. 2d 462 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 959, 89 S.Ct. 1307, 22 L.Ed.2d 560 (1969); Southern Pacific Co. v. Wilson, 378 F. 2d 533, 536-537 (5th Cir. 1967). Here the Board refused to give any weight to Hall’s alibi defense merely because he had not previously presented it. The Board, of course, is entitled to completely reject such evidence after reviewing it on the merits, but this procedure in this case denied Hall the opportunity to present his alibi defense at the de novo hearing.
Appellants argue the Board did consider the evidence and then decided to accord it no weight. Yet a careful reading of its entire opinion compels us to find that the Board rejected the evidence because Hall was tardy in presenting it. Further, a refusal to consider the evidence was not harmless; the Board itself recognized that if the facts Hall relied on were true, they would constitute a complete defense to his discharge. The presentation of one’s defense is a basic due process right, and the district court properly remanded the case to afford Hall the opportunity to exercise that right in a de novo hearing.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. State, 356 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
-
Deba Edelman v. W. Airlines, Inc., 892 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1989)
-
Wells v. S. Airways, Inc., 517 F.2d 132 (5th Cir. 1975)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Gunther v. San Diego & Ariz. E. Ry. Co., 382 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1965)
- Allen v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1969)
- Williams v. United States, 394 U.S. 959 (U.S. 1969)
- Rosen v. E. AIR Lines, Inc., 400 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1968)
- S. Pac. Co. v. Wilson, 378 F.2d 533 (5th Cir. 1967)