Wimberly v. Mission Broadcasting Co., s. 75-1213

Decision Date20 October 1975
Docket NumberNos. 75-1213,75-1214,s. 75-1213
Parties90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3037, 77 Lab.Cas. P 11,123 Donald E. WIMBERLY, Appellee, v. MISSION BROADCASTING COMPANY et al., Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Earl S. Wylder, Frickey, Cairns & Wylder, Denver, Colo., for appellants.

Sander N. Karp, Law Offices of Rudolph Schware, P. C., Denver, Colo., for appellee.

Before LEWIS, Chief Judge, and HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.

SETH, Circuit Judge.

Donald E. Wimberly, a veteran, brought this action for reemployment and to recover lost wages for the alleged wrongful refusal of the defendants to reemploy him after discharge from the service as required by the Military Selective Service Act of 1967, 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 459(b)(B).

The facts of the case are uncontroverted. In January 1971, Wimberly was working on a full-time basis as a control operator for KBTR, a Denver radio station owned by Mullins Broadcasting Company. He left his job at the station approximately ten months later when he was drafted into the service. While Wimberly was in the service, Combined Communications Corporation entered into an agreement with the executors of the estate of John C. Mullins to purchase all of the stock of Mullins Broadcasting Company. Since applicable FCC regulations required that a separate buyer be produced to acquire control of KBTR, the executors of the Mullins estate subsequently entered into an agreement with Mission Denver Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mission Broadcasting Company, for the sale to it of the assets of the radio station. In the interim between the date of this agreement and actual transfer, the assets of the radio station became a part of a new corporation called KBTR, Inc., which the FCC had authorized the executors of the Mullins estate to set up, operate, and control. In the latter part of August 1973, final transfer was approved by the FCC, and Mission Denver Company took possession of the assets, exclusive of accounts receivable. Mission changed the format of the station from all news to country western and news. It also obtained authority to change and did change the call letters to KERE, and commenced business at a new location in Denver. There was no common ownership between the buyer and seller, and thus the assets passed to entirely different owners. Also none of the KBTR employees were retained except a bookkeeper.

Plaintiff was honorably discharged approximately two months after the final transfer of the station's assets, and he immediately applied for work with Mission Denver Company, Mission Broadcasting Company, and Combined Communications Corporation. He was not hired and brought this action pursuant to 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 459(b)(B). The statute provides generally that a person who has left a position of employment in order to perform military service shall be restored, upon discharge and proper application, to his previous position or its equivalent by his employer or his employer's "successor in interest" unless circumstances have so changed as to make reemployment unreasonable.

The trial court held that Mission Denver Company and Mission Broadcasting Company were the "successors in interest" to Mullins Broadcasting Company, and that circumstances had not changed so as to make it unreasonable for them to reemploy Wimberly.

The defendants contend on appeal that they are not the "successors in interest" to Mullins Broadcasting Company and, in the alternative, that circumstances at the station had changed so as to make reemployment of Wimberly...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • United States v. ConocoPhillips Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma
    • August 23, 2012
    ...and taking up its business activity, does not become the selling firm's 'successor in interest'"); Wimberly v. Mission Broadcasting Co., 523 F.2d 1260, 1262 (10th Cir. 1975)("the primary inquiry to be made in determining if one is a 'successor in interest.' . . . is whether there is a subst......
  • Chaltry v. Ollie's Idea, Inc., M 76-26 CA 2.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • June 18, 1982
    ...country. The court acknowledges that there are other standards which it could apply to this case, see e.g., Wimberly v. Mission Broadcasting Co., 523 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1975); Rix v. Turnbull-Novak, Inc., 159 F.Supp. 199 (W.D.Mo.1958); however, under the circumstances of this case the cou......
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT