Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

16 Fair empl.prac.cas. 997, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7875 Ernest Herrera v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 73-2254 (1977)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 73-2254 Visitors: 14
Filed: Oct. 12, 1977
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 560 F.2d 1285 16 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 997 , 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7875 Ernest HERRERA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 73-2254. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Oct. 12, 1977. Ruben Montemayor, Harry A. Nass, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants. Theo F. Weiss, San Antonio, Tex., Paul Scott Kelly, Jr., Raymond F. Beagle, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., for Yellow Freight System, Inc. Edward W. Penshorn, Brad
More

560 F.2d 1285

16 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 997, 15 Empl. Prac.
Dec. P 7875
Ernest HERRERA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 73-2254.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 12, 1977.

Ruben Montemayor, Harry A. Nass, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Theo F. Weiss, San Antonio, Tex., Paul Scott Kelly, Jr., Raymond F. Beagle, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., for Yellow Freight System, Inc.

Edward W. Penshorn, Bradford F. Miller, San Antonio, Tex., for Local 657.

Hal K. Gillespie, G. William Baab, Dallas, Tex., for Southern Conference of Teamsters.

Before WISDOM, AINSWORTH, and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

The Supreme Court of the United States, 1977, 431 U.S. 952, 97 S. Ct. 2669, 53 L. Ed. 2d 268, vacated the judgment of this Court in Herrera v. Yellow Freight System, Inc., 5 Cir. 1974, 505 F.2d 66, and remanded the cause to this Court for further consideration in light of East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 1977, 431 U.S. 395, 97 S. Ct. 1891, 52 L. Ed. 2d 453.

2

We now hold that the District Court did not err in denying relief on the ground that none of the plaintiffs (city drivers) could satisfy the qualifications for a road driver because of age or weight or driving record. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is

3

AFFIRMED.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer