Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

James C. Jacobson v. Industrial Foundation of the Permian Basin

456 F.2d 258

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-03-16
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • employees on blacklist because they have filed workmen's compensation claims
  • applicants for workman's compensation are not a class
  • persons filing workman’s compensation claims

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed James C. Jacobson v. Industrial Foundation of the Permian Basin. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
26 opinions
JACOBSON v. INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION OF PERMIAN,456 F.2d 258(5th Cir. 1972)
JAMES C. JACOBSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL FOUNDATION OF THE
PERMIAN BASIN ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 71-2683.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 16, 1972.
Page 259
Dan Sullivan, Andrews, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.

Brooks L. Harman, James M. O'Leary, W. O. Shafer, Terry K. Donk, Odessa, Tex., Rush Moody, Jr., Harrell Feldt, Midland, Tex., Richard K. Nunley, W. R. Barnes, Odessa, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before GEWIN, AINSWORTH and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] James C. Jacobson filed suit under42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) seeking compensatory and punitive damages for an alleged conspiracy to deprive him of employment by placing his name "on some nature of `blacklist'" because he had made claims for injuries under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act. The suit was dismissed on motion of the defendants because of its failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm.

[2] In his brief and on oral argument plaintiff forthrightly admits that he is not a member of a racial minority or group. He asserts:
Plaintiff herein frankly admits that his attempted adoption of42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) to the facts in his case is a departure from the traditional civil rights case.


[3] Plaintiff vaguely argues that he is a member of a class composed of those who have filed similar claims for workmen's compensation. There is nothing in the record to support his contention that he has filed a class action or that such a class exists, even under a most liberal interpretation of his complaint.

[4] In the trial court the plaintiff filed a motion to stay proceedings until the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Griffin v. Breckenridge,403 U.S. 88,91 S.Ct. 1790,29 L.Ed.2d 338(1971). Apparently the action was stayed until theGriffindecision was rendered and the trial court then dismissed the complaint. In our opinionGriffindisposes of the issues here involved contrary to the contentions of Jacobson.

[5] Judgment affirmed.Page 278