TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Stephen J. HARMON v. MAY BROADCASTING COMPANY, D/B/A KMTV Color Television Center

18 Fair empl.prac.cas. 178, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8634 Stephen J. Harmon v. May Broadcasting Company, D/B/A Kmtv Color Television Center

Harmon v. MAY Broad. Co., 583 F.2d 410 (8th Cir. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
September 19, 1978
Docket
No. 78-1187
Judges
Gibson, Markey, Matthes, Per Curiam
Citations
583 F.2d 41026 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 104717 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 863418 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1781978 U.S. App. LEXIS 8944

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Stephen J. Harmon, a white male, brought suit in the District of Nebraska, alleging that his discharge by May Broadcasting Company, doing business as KMTV Color Television Center, constituted racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l)

1

and the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. The District Court 2

struck appellant’s request for a jury trial and after trial dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Harmon filed a timely appeal.

We join the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits in holding that jury trials need not be provided defendants in Title VII suits.

Slack v. Havens, 522 F.2d 1091, 1094 , (9th Cir. 1975);

EEOC v. Detroit Edison Co., 515 F.2d 301 , 308-09 (6th Cir. 1975);

*411 Robinson v. Lorillard Corp., 444 F.2d 791, 802 (4th Cir. 1971);

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122, 1125 (5th Cir. 1969). An award of back pay under Title VII for discriminatory employment practices is an integral part of the equitable remedy of reinstatement and is not comparable to damages in a common-law action for breach of employment contract.

The District Court found that “the defendant has shown by clear and convincing evidence that its conduct was based on valid business discretion and judgment and has rebutted any inference or innuendo that plaintiff was released or replaced because of his race or because of the race of the person who replaced him.” After carefully considering the record, the briefs of the parties, and oral argument, we conclude that the factual findings of the District Court are not clearly erroneous and that it applied correct principles of law. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the District Court’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion.

1

. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) provides in pertinent part:

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer — (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; * * *.

2

. The Honorable Albert G. Schatz, United States District Judge, District of Nebraska.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 29 cases

View all citing references →
1979: 21981: 41982: 21983: 31985: 31987: 21988: 41989: 11990: 21992: 31994: 11995: 12002: 119792026peak 1981 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gray v. Nash Finch Co.701 F. Supp. 704 (N.D. Iowa 1988)
  2. Hybki v. Alexander & Alexander, Inc.536 F. Supp. 483 (W.D. Mo. 1982)
  3. Bentley v. Arlee Home Fashions, Inc.861 F. Supp. 65 (E.D. Ark. 1994)
  4. Stewart v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. of Indiana702 F. Supp. 230 (E.D. Mo. 1988)
  5. Smith v. ADM Feed Corp.456 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 1990)
  6. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. Knudson534 U.S. 204 (2002)

Most recent

  1. Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance v. Knudson534 U.S. 204 (2002)
  2. Hartman v. Smith & Davis Mfg. Co.904 F. Supp. 983 (E.D. Mo. 1995)
  3. Bentley v. Arlee Home Fashions, Inc.861 F. Supp. 65 (E.D. Ark. 1994)
  4. Michael E. Hubbard v. Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Michael E982 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
  5. Michael E. Hubbard v. Environmental Protection Agency, Michael E949 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
  6. Cook v. Foster Forbes Glass783 F. Supp. 1217 (E.D. Mo. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Robinson v. Lorillard Corp. (Two Cases), 444 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1971) 512
Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 417 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1969) 469
Slack v. Havens, 522 F.2d 1091 (9th Cir. 1975) 113

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list