Lyons v. Capital Transit Co.
| Citation | 62 A.2d 312 |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 703.,703. |
| Parties | LYONS v. CAPITAL TRANSIT CO. et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Division.
Action by Julius H. Lyons against the Capital Transit Company and others to recover back wages and to compel restoration of plaintiff to his employment with the Capital Transit Company. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Julius H. Lyons, pro se.
Frank F. Roberson, of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and CLAGETT, Associate Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant company entered upon a jury verdict below. The appellant, Julius H. Lyons, sued the Capital Transit Company and certain named individuals, the company's agents. He asked payment of back wages and restoration to his job. The defendant's answer denied that there was an enforceable agreement to reinstate. Appellee three times moved for directed verdict: on plaintiff's opening statement, at the close of his evidence and at the conclusion of all the evidence. Each of these motions was denied as to the Capital Transit Company, and the case submitted to the jury. A motion for directed verdict in favor of the individual defendants was granted. While an appeal was taken from the entire judgment, only errors regarding the judgment for the company have been urged.
Appellant had been a mechanic in the employ of the transit company. According to the testimony of witnesses for the company, he was a valuable and satisfactory employee. In July of 1946 he went on vacation but did not return at the expected time. Inquiry was made and it was found that he was in a State hospital in Maryland, from which he was not discharged until November. Thereafter he asked for and was returned to his job. However, it soon appeared that he acted differently from other employees. Often he returned to work after the completion of his shift to continue an unfinished job. His foreman on occasion protested and asked him to leave the work. It was testified that his relations with his fellow employees were not entirely harmonious. These conditions culminated in an alleged altercation with a fellow employee, Carter. Lyons, in response to a critical remark concerning his work, straightened up from a stooped position with a hammer in his hand and cursed at Carter. The exact details of the incident are disputed, but Carter testified that he left the scene because he was afraid Lyons ‘might hit me with it’ (the hammer). Carter's story was corroborated by two other employees who witnessed the incident. As a consequence of this incident, Lyons was not allowed to go to work on April 9, 1947. Upon protest he was referred to the Capital Transit offices in Georgetown. He went there and a conversation resulted with Messrs. Dunnigan and Feldman, two supervisory employees, concerning the termination of Lyons' employment. There is a sharp conflict as to what took place at this interview. Lyons' version is that the charge was that he had raised the hammer ‘at’ his fellow employee, he was promised this charge would be investigated, and if it was untrue he would be given his job back and paid for time lost from work. Feldman testified he had suspended Lyons on that occasion and had told him that various reports about him had been made and that ‘if the investigation proved the charges were true’ he ‘would be fired as of that time and if they were not true’ he ‘would be taken back and paid for the time he was off.'
On May 5, 1947, following such investigation, Lyons was sent a polite and carefully couched letter by the Capital Transit Company's director of personnel wherein he was advised that it appeared desirable from Lyons' viewpoint to again place himself under competent care and that it would be inadvisable for him to attempt to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carl v. Children's Hosp., 93-CV-1476.
...contrary, the contract is terminable by either employer or employee at will without liability to the other party." Lyons v. Capital Transit Co., 62 A.2d 312 (D.C.Mun.1948); see also Pfeffer v. Ernst, 82 A.2d 763, 764 (D.C.Mun.1951). As a judicially created and imposed doctrine the courts sh......
-
CARL v. CHILDREN'S HOSP.
...contrary, the contract is terminable by either employer or employee at will without liability to the other party." Lyons v. Capital Transit Co., 62 A.2d 312 (D.C. 1948); see also Pfeffer v. Ernst, 82 A.2d 763, 764 (D.C. 1951). As a judicially created and imposed doctrine the courts should b......
-
Pfeffer v. Ernst
...The mere statement that her position "would be open to her" was unilateral and without consideration to support it. Lyons v. Capital Transit Co., D.C.Mun. App., 62 A.2d 312. Moreover, as we said in the case just cited, contracts of this nature being for no definite period are terminable at ......
-
Sullivan v. Heritage Foundation, 12784.
...at will by either party. See, e. g., Taylor v. Green way Restaurant, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 173 A.2d 211 (1961); Lyons v. Capital Transit Co., D.C.Mun.App., 62 A.2d 312 (1948); 2 Restatement (Second) of Agency § 442 (1958). It has been long settled in this jurisdiction where no such intent [to......