Kay v. General Cable Corporation, Misc. No. 778a.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1945 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 778a. |
| Citation | 59 F. Supp. 358 |
| Parties | KAY v. GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Henry K. Golenbock, of Perth Amboy, N. J., for plaintiff Albert E. Kay.
Pitney, Hardin & Ward, of Newark, N. J. (Ben Herzberg, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant General Cable Corporation.
Thorn Lord, U. S. Atty., of Newark, N. J., and Vincent E. Hull, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Newark, N. J.
This matter is before me on an application by the defendant for an order vacating an ex-parte order previously entered and for entry of a new order.
This proceeding was initially brought under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 as amended, 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix § 308, which provides under section 308(b) (3) (B), that any person who upon entering the military or naval service of the United States, has left "a position, other than a temporary position, * * * in the employ of a private employer" shall, in the case of a private employer, be restored to such position or to a position of like seniority status and pay, "unless the employer's circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so." Section 308 (c) provides that a veteran who is restored to a position "shall not be discharged from such position without cause within one year after such restoration." Section 308 (e) provides that if the employer fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of subsection (b) or subsection (c) the veteran may institute a proceeding by filing a motion, petition or other pleading "to specifically require such employer to comply with such provisions, and, as an incident thereto, to compensate such person for any loss of wages or benefits suffered by reason of such employer's unlawful action."
The plaintiff, a duly licensed physician, was employed by the defendant corporation in 1931 as medical director at its plant. In December of 1942 plaintiff enlisted in the Army where he served for some six months, being honorably discharged on June 1, 1943. Following his discharge plaintiff made application to defendant to be restored to the position previously held by him. The defendant refused to reinstate. Thereafter, in December of 1943, plaintiff filed his petition in the district court for relief in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The matter was heard on December 29, 1943, at which time the petition was dismissed. On appeal the Circuit Court, in an opinion rendered on September 12, 1944, 144 F.2d 653, reversed the finding of the district court, and held the plaintiff to be eligible for protection under the Act.
Thereafter, in accordance with the mandate of the Circuit Court, an ex-parte order was entered on October 5, 1944 providing for the reinstatement of the plaintiff to his former position and further ordering the defendant to compensate and pay to the plaintiff $55 per week for the period commencing June 1, 1943, until the time the defendant shall have restored plaintiff to the position he had previously held.
An order to show cause was granted staying execution and permitting defendants to make this application for vacation of the order entered October 5, 1944, and for entry of an order directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. United States
...to provide for his financial stability for the period of at least one year following his discharge from service." Kay v. General Cable Corp., 59 F.Supp. 358, 360 (D.N.J. 1945).10 2. The FBI asserts that it had "cause" to dismiss Carter.11 Essentially the contention is that any FBI employee ......
-
Leib v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
...into the "highly competitive world of job finding without the handicap of a long absence from work." Id. (citing Kay v. General Cable Corp., 59 F.Supp. 358, 360 (D.N.J.1945)). That worry over losing a job might have substantial adverse impact on the morale of the armed services is plain. In......
-
Walsh v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
...suit for reinstatement can recover damages only for a period beginning after the date on which the suit is commenced. Kay v. General Cable Corp., D.C., 59 F.Supp. 358; Dacey v. Bethlehem Steel Co., D.C., 66 F.Supp. 161. In the case at bar the delay of over five years is a most unreasonable ......
-
John S. Doane Co. v. Martin
...veteran the opportunity to reacquire skills and business habits which appears to be the purpose of the Act. See Kay v. General Cable Corp., D.C.N.J. 1945, 59 F.Supp. 358, 360. Nor do we find any merit in respondent's argument that petitioner should look to his mother for reemployment rather......