Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

578 F.2d 215

Docket No. 77-1689.

Kimbrough v. Wilson

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted June 13, 1978.

Decided June 29, 1978.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1978-06-29

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1978

1 federal appellate ·

2 counsel of record

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on 435 F. Supp. 1095 - Kimbrough v. Wilson

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1978-06-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*216Elbert Dorsey, Bussey, Collier & Dorsey, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

¶2Charles W. Kunderer, Associate City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees; Jack L. Koehr, City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., on the brief.

¶3Before GIBSON, Chief Judge, and LAY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5John Kimbrough and three other black employees of the St. Louis, Missouri, Street Department brought this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that the defendant officials of the Street Department maintained policies, practices and customs of discrimination against them on account of race. After a three-day trial, the District Court1 entered judgment in favor of the defendant city officials.2

¶6The employees contended that the rating, disciplinary and promotion systems of the City have been operated in a discriminatory way inimical to their interests. In addition, they claimed that the City maintained racially segregated teams of workers. The evidence put forward by the employees was characterized by ambiguity and vagueness. By contrast, the City defendants introduced concrete evidence refuting the allegations of discrimination.

¶7We have carefully considered the record, and the briefs and arguments of the parties. We are satisfied that the District Court applied correct principles of law and that the factual findings of the District Court are not clearly erroneous. The judgment is affirmed on the basis of Judge Regan’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion.

¶8Affirmed.

/578/f2d/215 · .json · Public domain