Guy v. Bionetics Corp.

67 F.3d 303, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 32848, 1995 WL 564560
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 25, 1995
Docket93-1971
StatusUnpublished

This text of 67 F.3d 303 (Guy v. Bionetics Corp.) 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
Guy v. Bionetics Corp., 67 F.3d 303, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 32848, 1995 WL 564560 (8th Cir. 1995).

Opinion

67 F.3d 303

NOTICE: Eighth Circuit Rule 28A(k) governs citation of unpublished opinions and provides that no party may cite an opinion not intended for publication unless the cases are related by identity between the parties or the causes of action.
FLORA ROSALIND GUY, Appellant,
v.
THE BIONETICS CORPORATION; Dr. Joseph A. Stern, President;
Leo Daspit, Vice-President; Jerry Simmons, Project Manager;
Williams Ulkus, Training Manager; Suzan O'Brien,
Teleconference Dep; Norbert Rosen, Graphics Section Leader;
Jacqueline Hawley, Graphics Section; Russell S. Irwin,
Graphics Section, Appellees.

No. 93-1971.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 12, 1995.
Filed: Sept. 25, 1995.

Before FAGG, LOKEN, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Flora Rosalind Guy appeals from an adverse judgment following a bench trial in her Title VII employment discrimination action. On appeal, Guy contends the district court improperly denied her request retroactively to invoke the additional damages and jury trial provisions of Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981a. Guy's contention, however, is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's recent decision in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S. Ct. 1483, 1505-08 (1994), and our holdings in Polacco v. Curators of the University of Missouri, 37 F.3d 366, 370(8th Cir.

1994), and Wright v. General Dynamics Corp., 23 F.3d 1478, 1479 (8th Cir.1994). An extended discussion of Guy's contention would serve no useful purpose because the controlling law is clear. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

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

Related

Landgraf v. USI Film Products
511 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Wright v. General Dynamics Corp.
23 F.3d 1478 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F.3d 303, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 32848, 1995 WL 564560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guy-v-bionetics-corp-ca8-1995.