Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Alexander Jones v. McDonnell Douglas, 99-2226 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Number: 99-2226 Visitors: 27
Filed: Jan. 20, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 99-2226 _ Alexander Jones, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * McDonnell Douglas Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: January 12, 2000 Filed: January 20, 2000 _ Before HANSEN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Alexander Jones appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in this wrongful termination action. Jones, a
More
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 99-2226 ___________ Alexander Jones, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * McDonnell Douglas Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * ___________ Submitted: January 12, 2000 Filed: January 20, 2000 ___________ Before HANSEN, BRIGHT, and FAGG, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Alexander Jones appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in this wrongful termination action. Jones, a mechanic at McDonnell Douglas Corporation, was terminated from his employment for leaving the workplace without clocking out. In keeping with the collective bargaining agreement, the union represented Jones during the first two steps of the grievance procedure. When the union declined to pursue the grievance further, Jones brought this action against his former employer. The district court concluded Jones failed to prove the union breached its duty of fair representation and thus granted summary judgment to McDonnell Douglas Corporation without reaching the question of just cause for Jones's termination. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs in the context of Jones's contentions, we believe the district court decision is correct. We also believe that an extended discussion about the application of the controlling law to the unique factual circumstances in this case would merely repeat the district court's well-reasoned analysis and serve no useful precedential purpose. We thus affirm on the basis of the district court's memorandum opinion and order without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -2-
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