Clarence W. Otis v. City of Memphis Park Commission

Sixth Circuit

Clarence W. Otis v. City of Memphis Park Commission

615 F.2d 1151, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20313

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 21, 1980

Docket77-1740

StatusPublished

This text of 615 F.2d 1151 (Clarence W. Otis v. City of Memphis Park Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clarence W. Otis v. City of Memphis Park Commission, 615 F.2d 1151, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20313 (6th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case discloses ample support for the findings of the District Judge’s determining that plaintiffs had established a class and that defendantappellee was guilty of racial discrimination in the hiring of temporary bricklayers, and for his entry of injunctive relief pertaining to future hiring practices and his holding that attorney’s fees should be awarded.

Further, our inspection of the record requires vacation of those portions of the District Judge’s orders denying a hearing on back pay and assessing attorney’s fees, and a remand of this case for further consideration of back pay and attorney’s fees. See Head v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 486 F.2d 870 (6th Cir. 1973); Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir. 1975), and Northcross v. Board of Education, 611 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. 1979).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The record in this case discloses ample support for the findings of the District Judge’s determining that plaintiffs had established a class and that defendantappellee was guilty of racial discrimination in the hiring of temporary bricklayers, and for his entry of injunctive relief pertaining to future hiring practices and his holding that attorney’s fees should be awarded.

Further, our inspection of the record requires vacation of those portions of the District Judge’s orders denying a hearing on back pay and assessing attorney’s fees, and a remand of this case for further consideration of back pay and attorney’s fees. See Head v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 486 F.2d 870 (6th Cir. 1973); Meadows v. Ford Motor Co., 510 F.2d 939 (6th Cir. 1975), and Northcross v. Board of Education, 611 F.2d 624 (6th Cir. 1979).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part and vacated in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 F.2d 1151, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 20313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-w-otis-v-city-of-memphis-park-commission-ca6-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack