Unpublished Disposition Notice: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 States that Citation of Unpublished Dispositions is Disfavored Except for Establishing Res Judicata, Estoppel, or the Law of the Case and Requires Service of Copies of Cited Unpublished Dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Willard M. Mason, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richmond Motor Co., Inc., T/a Richmond Ford; R. C. King, Sr.; Charlie Johnson, Defendant-Appellee., 825 F.2d 407 (4th Cir. 1987)

Federal Circuits, Fourth Circuit (July 30, 1987)

Docket number: 86-2626

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/willard-mason-richmond-charlie-37163394
Id. vLex: VLEX-37163394

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 5 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 374, 5 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8093 Calvin A. Cox, Individually, and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. Babcock and Wilcox Company, a Corporation, Appellee., 471 F.2d 13 (4th Cir. 1972)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

Robert Patrick Geary (Geary & Davenport, on brief), for appellant.

Henry M. Massie, Jr. (Robert B. Delano, Jr., Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, on brief), for appellees.

Before WINTER, SPROUSE and CHAPMAN Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal arises out of an age discrimination suit in which the jury found for the defendant. The district court admitted into evidence the findings of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the plaintiff, who had complained to the EEOC, had failed to substantiate his claim. The plaintiff-appellant argues that this admission constitutes reversible error. Finding the district court's decision within its discretion, we affirm.

This court has held that the decision on whether to admit into evidence EEOC records is discretionary with the district court. Cox v. Babcock and Wilcox Company, 471 F.2d 13, 15 (4th Cir. 1972). We perceive no reason on the facts of this case to conclude that the district court abused its discretion. The district court's limiting instruction helped the jury put the report in proper perspective.

The appellant's other contentions are equally without merit. We thus affirm the decision of the district court.

AFFIRMED.