Luther M. Young, Jr. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ben Smith v. Kerrville Bus Company, Inc. (5th Cir. 1983)
- Houlihan Trading Company v. CTI Foods, LLC (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2023)
- Hanley v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2023)
- United Gov sec/intl v. US Marshal Service (District Court, District of Columbia 2012)
- International Union, United Government Security Officers of America v. Clark (District Court, District of Columbia 2012)
- International Union, United Government Security Officers v. Clark (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
- United Gov sec/intl v. US Marshal Service (District Court, District of Columbia 2010)
- Hutchins v. Fordyce Bank & Trust Co. (In re Hutchins) (United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas 1997)
- Griess v. Climax Molybdenum Co. (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1980)
- Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co. v. Independent Oil & Chemical Workers (District Court, D. Maryland 1974)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Young, the plaintiff, brought an action in the United States District Court under § 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185, alleging that Southwestern Bell, his employer, had breached its collective bargaining contract by discharging him at a time when he had less than three years’ service with the company.
Young sought reinstatement, back pay and restoration of all other rights. The labor contract does not limit the company in its right to discharge an employee with less than three years’ service. This is not disputed. The case was submitted to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment.
It is settled law that absent a contractual provision, the employer has the right to hire and discharge employees at will provided the motivating cause is not a protected union activity. See, e. g., Kellwood Co., Ottenheimer Bros. Mfg. Div. v. NLRB, 411 F.2d 493 (8th Cir. 1969).
Chief Judge Henley, in a published memorandum opinion, thoroughly recites the facts and sets forth the applicable law. We agree with the conclusion reached and affirm the judgment on the basis of the district court opinion in Young v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 309 F.Supp. 475 (E.D.Ark. 1969).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.