R. C. Edwards, Jr. v. Clinchfield Railroad Company

Sixth Circuit

R. C. Edwards, Jr. v. Clinchfield Railroad Company

408 F.2d 5, 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2912, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13289

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 1969

Docket18518

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 408 F.2d 5 (R. C. Edwards, Jr. v. Clinchfield Railroad Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

R. C. Edwards, Jr. v. Clinchfield Railroad Company, 408 F.2d 5, 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2912, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13289 (6th Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellee employee left his employment with appellant employer for two years to serve in the armed services. Thereafter, he brought an action against his employer in connection with the latter’s determination of the length of vacations with pay by the number of years of continuous service during each year in which the employee rendered compensated services.

The District Court held that an employee who leaves his employment to serve in the armed services is entitled to be restored, after resuming employment, to a position, which, on the moving escalator of terms and conditions affecting that particular employment, would be comparable to the position which he would have held if he had remained continuously in civilian employment; and, that the employer, in determining the length of employee’s paid vacation, was required to treat him as having been continuously employed on compensated service time during the entire period of his armed service. Universal Military Training and Service Act, Section 9(b) (A, B), (c), 50 U.S.C.A. App. Section 459(b) (A, B), (c).

On appeal, we are of the view that, as determined by the District Court, the case is governed by Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 383 U.S. 225, 86 S.Ct. 768, 15 L.Ed.2d 717. See also Morton v. Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company, 405 F.2d 415 (C.A. 8) (decided January 2, 1969).

In accordance with the foregoing, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Neese, 278 F.Supp. 751 (E.D. Tenn.).

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellee employee left his employment with appellant employer for two years to serve in the armed services. Thereafter, he brought an action against his employer in connection with the latter’s determination of the length of vacations with pay by the number of years of continuous service during each year in which the employee rendered compensated services.

The District Court held that an employee who leaves his employment to serve in the armed services is entitled to be restored, after resuming employment, to a position, which, on the moving escalator of terms and conditions affecting that particular employment, would be comparable to the position which he would have held if he had remained continuously in civilian employment; and, that the employer, in determining the length of employee’s paid vacation, was required to treat him as having been continuously employed on compensated service time during the entire period of his armed service. Universal Military Training and Service Act, Section 9(b) (A, B), (c), 50 U.S.C.A. App. Section 459(b) (A, B), (c).

On appeal, we are of the view that, as determined by the District Court, the case is governed by Accardi v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 383 U.S. 225, 86 S.Ct. 768, 15 L.Ed.2d 717. See also Morton v. Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company, 405 F.2d 415 (C.A. 8) (decided January 2, 1969).

In accordance with the foregoing, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed upon the opinion of Judge Neese, 278 F.Supp. 751 (E.D. Tenn.).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 F.2d 5, 70 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2912, 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-c-edwards-jr-v-clinchfield-railroad-company-ca6-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack