Levelle Clay v. Consumer Programs, Inc.

Eighth Circuit

Levelle Clay v. Consumer Programs, Inc.

745 F.2d 501, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1502, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18856

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 6, 1984

Docket83-2658

StatusPublished

This text of 745 F.2d 501 (Levelle Clay v. Consumer Programs, Inc.) 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

Levelle Clay v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 745 F.2d 501, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1502, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18856 (8th Cir. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

LeVelle Clay brought this suit against his former employer, Consumer Programs, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming racial discrimination. The District Court 1 found that the defendant had not discriminated against Clay. Clay v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 576 F.Supp. 185 (E.D.Mo.1983). We have considered each of the arguments made on appeal by plaintiff and are not persuaded that any error of law has been committed, nor that the District Court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. The judgment is therefore affirmed on the basis of the District Court’s published opinion.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

LeVelle Clay brought this suit against his former employer, Consumer Programs, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming racial discrimination. The District Court 1 found that the defendant had not discriminated against Clay. Clay v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 576 F.Supp. 185 (E.D.Mo.1983). We have considered each of the arguments made on appeal by plaintiff and are not persuaded that any error of law has been committed, nor that the District Court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous. The judgment is therefore affirmed on the basis of the District Court’s published opinion.

Affirmed.

1

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 F.2d 501, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1502, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 18856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levelle-clay-v-consumer-programs-inc-ca8-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack