Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

671 F.2d 279

Docket No. 81-1719.

Kellin v. ACF Industries

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

Submitted Feb. 8, 1982. Decided Feb. 12, 1982.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1982-02-12

2 counsel of record

Relies on Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Ferguson v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. · United States v. Ohio Power Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1982-02-12

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2004

8 federal appellate ·

90198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

John H. Quinn III, argued, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant; Armstrong, Teasdale, Kramer & Vaughan, St. Louis, Mo., of counsel.

Thomas C. Walsh, argued, Hollye Stolz Atwood, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee ACF Industries, Inc.; Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts, St. Louis, Mo., of counsel.

Before LAY, Chief Judge, STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge, and OVERTON,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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.

¶2

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 Court1 on the basis of the District Court's opinion reported as Kellin v. ACF Industries, 517 F.Supp. 226 (E.D.Mo.1981).

*

The Honorable William R. Overton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation

1

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

/671/f2d/279 · .json · Public domain