Filed: Dec. 15, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20404 Summary Calendar G.A. WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, also known as Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston (USDC No. H-97-CV-3946) _ December 15, 2000 Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determin
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20404 Summary Calendar G.A. WILLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, also known as Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston (USDC No. H-97-CV-3946) _ December 15, 2000 Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determine..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20404
Summary Calendar
G.A. WILLIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND
SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY,
also known as Burlington Northern
Santa Fe,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, Houston
(USDC No. H-97-CV-3946)
_______________________________________________________
December 15, 2000
Before REAVLEY, DeMOSS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
Gregory A. Willis appeals from summary judgment upholding a National
Railway Adjustment Board arbitral award. We affirm the judgment of the district
court for the following reasons: (1) the board complied with all requirements of the
Railway Labor Act; (2) it acted within the scope of its jurisdiction; and (3) there is
no evidence of fraud or corruption. Our review is limited to these grounds. See 45
U.S.C. ยง 153 First (q); Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Sheehan,
439 U.S. 89, 93 (1978).
AFFIRMED.
2