U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1974

Herman A. Boll v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Decided May 6, 1974 · Heaney, Stephenson, Smith

497 F.2d 335; 21 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 886; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 8794 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Sanford Goffstein, Clayton, Mo., for appellant., Kathryn J. More, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.

Stephen Abell v. Sky Bridge Resources (6th Cir. 2017)
Hubert Bush v. State Industries, Inc. (6th Cir. 1979)
Keith Jones v. Producers Service Corp. (6th Cir. 2024)
Skaff v. Pridemore (W. Va. 1997)
Szymula v. Ash Grove Cement Co. (District Court, D. Kansas 1996)
Boehm v. Kansas City Power And Light Company (10th Cir. 1989)
Clifford Brown v. Masonry Products, Inc., Bob Hollingsworth, and Allen Hollingsworth (11th Cir. 1989)
Boehm v. Kansas City Power & Light Co. (10th Cir. 1989)
Lanehart v. Devine (District Court, D. Maryland 1985)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1985)
Donovan v. Welex (District Court, S.D. Texas 1982)
Alaska International Industries, Inc. v. Musarra (Alaska 1979)
Marshall v. JC Penney Co., Inc. (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1979)
Usery v. Johnson (District Court, D. North Dakota 1977)
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1976)

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

PER CURIAM.

Herman A. Boll, a former assistant examiner employed by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, appeals from the District Court’s finding of fact as to the reason for his discharge from the Bank and its holding that his employment contracts with the Bank complied with the “Belo” provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 1 29 U.S.C. § 207(f) (1970).

Boll contends that he was discharged from employment with the Bank because he complained to officials that he had been denied certain overtime pay and threatened to file proceedings against the Bank under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. The District Court found that Boll was not discharged for the reasons he alleged, but that his discharge

* * * was the result of year-end reports made by bank examiners which indicated that [Boll] was unable to cooperate with his fellow employees and caused irritating incidents with bankers whose banks were being examined.

365 F.Supp. 637, 650 (E.D.Mo. 1973).

This finding is supported by substantial evidence, is not clearly erroneous and, thus, may not be set aside by this Court.

We are also satisfied that the District Court did not err in concluding that the contracts between Boll and the Bank complied with Section 7(f) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29 U.S.C. § 207(f). It made no error in law in reaching this conclusion, and its findings of fact on this issue are not clearly erroneous.

Affirmed.

. The case was tried below to the court, and the decision is reported in 365 F.Supp. 637 (E.D.Mo. 1973).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.