KENNETH W. KELLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
ACF INDUSTRIES, 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 affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no clear error in its factual findings or logical inconsistencies in its conclusions.
Appellant claimed ACF Industries retaliated against him for filing an EEOC charge by increasing disciplinary actions. The district court found a prima…
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 Eeoc Charge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Kenneth W. Kellin, appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denying his motion for a new trial or entry of a new judgment on the issue of retaliation. That matter was before the District Court on remand from this Court 629 F. 2d 532 (8th Cir.) for further consideration of Kellin’s claim that appellee, ACF Industries (ACF), retaliated against Kellin after he filed an EEOC charge on December 27, 1971, by increasing the number of disciplinary actions taken against him. In analyzing the evidence in the record in light of the principles enunciated by this Court in Womack v. Munson, 619 F. 2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1980), the District Court concluded that Kellin established a prima facie case of retaliation with respect to the disciplinary measures taken against him in the latter half of 1972, but determined that a prima facie case did not extend beyond 1972. The District Court also concluded that ACF rebutted the prima facie case with evidence which showed that the disciplinary actions which were taken were warranted.
Our review of the record indicates that the District Court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that the conclusions logically follow from these findings. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court1 on the basis of the District Court’s opinion reported as Kellin v. ACF Industries, 517 F.Supp. 226 (E.D.Mo.1981).
. The Hon. Edward L. Filippine, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mo. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Kan. GAS & Elec. Co., 862 F.2d 796 (10th Cir. 1988)
-
Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. Int'l Paper Co., 824 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1987)
-
Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co. v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 859 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1988)
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Womack v. Munson, 619 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir. 1980)
- Kellin v. ACF Indus. & Bhd. of Ry. Carmen Local No. 365, 629 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1980)