Leo Wood v. Southern Pacific Co.

Ninth Circuit

Leo Wood v. Southern Pacific Co.

447 F.2d 486, 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2512

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 17, 1971

Docket25213

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 447 F.2d 486 (Leo Wood v. Southern Pacific Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leo Wood v. Southern Pacific Co., 447 F.2d 486, 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2512 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a veteran returning from military service, appeals from the District Court’s judgment in favor of appel-lee. Appellant claims that the railroad failed to meet its duty under 50 U.S.C. App. 459 to offer him the same job and benefits he would have had if he had not entered the service.

Had appellant remained at his job as a fireman, he undeniably would have been given the opportunity to become a switchman. The mere fact that management might have given his work group a different job option is insufficient to withhold it from him now. Brooks v. Mo. Pacific R. R. Co., 376 U.S. 182, 84 S.Ct. 578, 11 L.Ed.2d 599 (1964); Tilton v. Mo. Pacific R. R. Co., 376 U.S. 169, 84 S.Ct. 595, 11 L.Ed.2d 590 (1964). If appellant is now denied the same choice of jobs offered to his peers during his absence, he will be penalized for having served his country in the military. Conner v. Penn. R. R. Co., 85 U.S. App.D.C. 223, 177 F.2d 854, cert. denied 339 U.S. 919, 70 S.Ct. 622, 94 L.Ed. 1343 (1949). The requirements of the statute cannot be satisfied “by giving returning veterans seniority in some general abstract sense and then denying them the perquisites and benefits that flow from it.” Accardi v. Penn. R. R. Co., 383 U.S. 225, 230, 86 S.Ct. 768, 772, 15 L.Ed.2d 717 (1966).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a veteran returning from military service, appeals from the District Court’s judgment in favor of appel-lee. Appellant claims that the railroad failed to meet its duty under 50 U.S.C. App. 459 to offer him the same job and benefits he would have had if he had not entered the service.

Had appellant remained at his job as a fireman, he undeniably would have been given the opportunity to become a switchman. The mere fact that management might have given his work group a different job option is insufficient to withhold it from him now. Brooks v. Mo. Pacific R. R. Co., 376 U.S. 182, 84 S.Ct. 578, 11 L.Ed.2d 599 (1964); Tilton v. Mo. Pacific R. R. Co., 376 U.S. 169, 84 S.Ct. 595, 11 L.Ed.2d 590 (1964). If appellant is now denied the same choice of jobs offered to his peers during his absence, he will be penalized for having served his country in the military. Conner v. Penn. R. R. Co., 85 U.S. App.D.C. 223, 177 F.2d 854, cert. denied 339 U.S. 919, 70 S.Ct. 622, 94 L.Ed. 1343 (1949). The requirements of the statute cannot be satisfied “by giving returning veterans seniority in some general abstract sense and then denying them the perquisites and benefits that flow from it.” Accardi v. Penn. R. R. Co., 383 U.S. 225, 230, 86 S.Ct. 768, 772, 15 L.Ed.2d 717 (1966).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

447 F.2d 486, 78 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leo-wood-v-southern-pacific-co-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack