Mitchell v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, 16268.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 16268.,16268. |
| Citation | 278 F.2d 562 |
| Parties | James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Appellant, v. GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Charles R. Garner, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellee.
Before GARDNER, WOODROUGH and BLACKMUN, Circuit Judges.
The Secretary of Labor filed a complaint in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas praying an injunction against the defendant, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, from violating § 15(a) (3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 215(a) (3), for reinstatement in its employment of one M. C. Cole, and for the payment of wages of M. C. Cole lost to him by reason of his unlawful discharge. The District Court declined to grant the relief and dismissed the action. The Secretary of Labor appeals.
This action is brought under § 15(a) (3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 215(a) (3), which provides:
One M. C. Cole was an employee of the defendant at its retail and service store in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The parties stipulated, and the trial court found, that the defendant in its regular business received merchandise in substantial quantity from without the State of Arkansas and delivered substantial quantities of its merchandise to customers located outside the state.
Cole commenced his employment with defendant sometime in 1951 and had been employed continuously by it until his discharge in June of 1958, except for a two year period of military service. Cole's duties were those of a tire service man: he fixed flats, mounted tires, saw to the inspection and service of a fleet of trucks whose owner had a service contract with defendant; he likewise ran errands, loaded and unloaded merchandise, and helped keep the premises clean.
Cole was of the opinion that he had worked overtime in December of 1957 and again in June of 1958 for which he had not been paid. With this in mind, he attempted to contact the wage and hour division of the Department of Labor to rectify his situation. On being told that that division did not maintain an office in Fort Smith, he wrote to the nearest office. The letter was dated June 23, 1958, and was signed by Cole and another, who subsequently denied its authorship. The letter said:
On the next day that the store manager was in the store, June 25, Cole was called into the office, quizzed about the letter, and discharged.
The central issue at the trial, then, was this: did the defendant employer discharge or discriminate against Cole because he had filed a complaint against his employer.
The government produced the testimony of Cole and Cole's immediate supervisor, one McCain. Cole testified that he had been employed in the same capacity for some six or seven years, except for the time that he was in the military service. He stated that he considered himself a good employee, that he had worked, but had not been paid for, the overtime for which he made the complaint to the Department of Labor. He stated in this connection that he had made out his time card showing the overtime but that it had been returned to him by the store manager for signature with the overtime portion crossed out. He testified that when he went to see the manager about the non-payment the store manager told him "he didn't see where he could pay the overtime that we put in." He said that on June 25, the first day after he had written the letter that the manager was in the store, he had been called into the manager's office and asked if he had written or called the Wage and Hour Division. He acknowledged that he had. To a question as to why he had written he responded that he wanted to find out why he had not been paid for the overtime that he had worked. He said that the manager, Grantham, then asked his supervisor, McCain, if he thought that Cole had the overtime coming. When McCain answered in the affirmative, Grantham said, "If that is the way you feel about Goodyear, we won't have any further use for you." With this he was fired.
McCain, Cole's supervisor, testified that Cole was an able and comparatively diligent worker, that he had in fact worked the overtime to which he made claim, and that the interview resulting in Cole's discharge transpired substantially as related by Cole.
Grantham, the store manager, testified for the defendant that Cole was an entirely unsatisfactory employee; his job deficiencies ran the gamut of tardiness, neglectful work, misuse of equipment and tools, and the burden of bill collector calls. He stated that Cole was scheduled for discharge before the incident of the complaint to the Wage and Hour Division. His version of the interview during which Cole was fired is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Truckenmiller v. Burgess Health Ctr.
...F.2d 179, 181 (8th Cir.1975) (citing Goldberg v. Bama Manufacturing Corp., 302 F.2d 152 (5th Cir.1962), and Mitchell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 278 F.2d 562 (8th Cir.1960)); accord Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 121 F.3d 1390, 1394 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting Love v. RE/MAX of Am., Inc.,......
-
Reeves v. International Tel. and Tel. Corp.
...additional equal amount as liquidated damages, bringing the total back pay and liquidated damages award to $93,241.30. Tire & Rubber Co., 278 F.2d 562 (8th Cir. 1960). Reinstatement. IT&T argues that reinstatement is a remedy "wholly outside the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act." As ......
-
Truckenmiller v. Burgess Health Ctr.
...(8th Cir. 1975) (citing Goldberg v. Bama Manufacturing Corp., 302 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1962), and Mitchell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 278 F.2d 562 (8th Cir. 1960)); accord Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 121 F.3d 1390, 1394 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Love v. RE/MAX of Am., Inc., 738 F.2d ......
-
Hageman v. Park West Gardens
...or not other grounds for discharge exist. Goldberg v. Bama Manufacturing Corp., 302 F.2d 152 (5th Cir.1962); Mitchell v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 278 F.2d 562 (8th Cir.1960). In the Mitchell case we reversed as clearly erroneous the trial court's finding that an employee's discharge was ......