Kenneth W. KELLIN, Appellant, v. ACF INDUSTRIES, Appellee

671 F.2d 279, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 21855, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,450, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1467
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 12, 1982
Docket81-1719
StatusPublished

This text of 671 F.2d 279 (Kenneth W. KELLIN, Appellant, v. ACF INDUSTRIES, 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
Kenneth W. KELLIN, Appellant, v. ACF INDUSTRIES, Appellee, 671 F.2d 279, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 21855, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,450, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1467 (8th Cir. 1982).

Opinion

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 Court 1 on the basis of the District Court’s opinion reported as Kellin v. ACF Industries, 517 F.Supp. 226 (E.D.Mo.1981).

1

. The Hon. Edward L. Filippine, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

Related

Kellin v. ACF Industries
517 F. Supp. 226 (E.D. Missouri, 1981)
Womack v. Munson
619 F.2d 1292 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
671 F.2d 279, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 21855, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,450, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenneth-w-kellin-appellant-v-acf-industries-appellee-ca8-1982.