Emil ROTHENBERGER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, Appellee

Eighth Circuit

Emil ROTHENBERGER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, Appellee

736 F.2d 1240, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21318, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,727, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1377

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJune 20, 1984

Docket84-1125

StatusPublished

This text of 736 F.2d 1240 (Emil ROTHENBERGER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emil ROTHENBERGER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. DOUGLAS COUNTY, Appellee, 736 F.2d 1240, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21318, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,727, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1377 (8th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Emil Rothenberger, an employee of Douglas County in South Dakota, sued the county on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals alleging that the county’s failure to participate in the state retirement plan violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1982); the due process clause; and unspecified state law. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice concluding that Rothenberger filed his complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the 180-day limitation period had run and that his complaints of retaliation and due process violations failed to state causes of action, 580 F.Supp. 210. Rothenberger appeals this dismissal.

We have carefully considered the briefs of both parties, the record on appeal, the district court’s opinion, and the parties’ oral arguments. Finding no error of law or fact, we affirm based on the well-reasoned decision of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

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

ORDER

Emil Rothenberger, an employee of Douglas County in South Dakota, sued the county on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals alleging that the county’s failure to participate in the state retirement plan violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1982); the due process clause; and unspecified state law. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice concluding that Rothenberger filed his complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the 180-day limitation period had run and that his complaints of retaliation and due process violations failed to state causes of action, 580 F.Supp. 210. Rothenberger appeals this dismissal.

We have carefully considered the briefs of both parties, the record on appeal, the district court’s opinion, and the parties’ oral arguments. Finding no error of law or fact, we affirm based on the well-reasoned decision of the district court. See 8th Cir.R. 14.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

736 F.2d 1240, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 21318, 35 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 34,727, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emil-rothenberger-on-behalf-of-himself-and-all-others-similarly-situated-ca8-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack