From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schulner v. Jack Eckerd Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jun 6, 1983
706 F.2d 1113 (11th Cir. 1983)

Summary

Holding that an order to reinstate employee pending determination of damages was appealable under Section 1292 because it "was in the nature of an injunction".

Summary of this case from Police Ass'n, New Orleans v. New Orleans

Opinion

No. 82-5013.

June 6, 1983.

Thomas M. Gonzalez, Charles P. Schropp, Raymond T. Elligett, Jr., Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings Evans, Tampa, Fla., for defendants-appellants.

Kathleen Phillips, Coral Gables, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and GOLDBERG, Senior Circuit Judge.

Honorable Irving L. Goldberg, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.


Jack Eckerd Corporation and J. Byrons Enterprises appeal under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(a)(1) (West 1982) from an order directing them to reinstate plaintiff to his former position as Merchandise Manager. This order was entered after a jury found for the plaintiff on his claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. 29 U.S.C.A. § 621, et seq. (West 1982). The issue of compensatory damages was reserved for determination by the trial court, served for determination by the trial court, and a final judgment has yet to be entered.

It is well-established that the granting of an injunction is appealable as an interlocutory order even though the trial court may have reserved its determination of remaining issues, such as compensatory damages. See, e.g., Laje v. R.E. Thomason General Hospital, 564 F.2d 1159, 1161-62 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 3091, 57 L.Ed.2d 1134 (1978); Williams Electronics v. Artic International, Inc., 685 F.2d 870, 871 (3d Cir. 1982); United States v. County of Humboldt, 615 F.2d 1260, 1261 (9th Cir. 1980); Williams v. St. Louis Diecasting Corp., 611 F.2d 1223, 1224 (8th Cir. 1979); Garzaro v. University of Puerto Rico, 575 F.2d 335, 337-38 (1st Cir. 1978). It is also clear that the trial court's order that plaintiff be reinstated pending a determination of damages was "in the nature of an injunction." Laje v. R.E. Thomason General Hospital, 564 F.2d at 1161; see Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84-86, 101 S.Ct. 993, 996-98, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); Roberts v. St. Regis Paper Co., 653 F.2d 166, 169-70 (5th Cir. 1981); Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School District, 665 F.2d 443, 446-47 (3d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 102 S.Ct. 3508, 73 L.Ed.2d 1383 (1982); Lewis v. Tobacco Workers' International Union, 577 F.2d 1135, 1138-39 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1089, 99 S.Ct. 871, 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979); Stricklin v. Regents of the University of Wisconsin, 420 F.2d 1257, 1258-59 (7th Cir. 1970). See generally, C. Wright A. Miller, 16 Federal Practice Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3922, at 29 (1977). We therefore hold that the reinstatement order is appealable under § 1292(a)(1) as an interlocutory order granting an injunction.

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. Id. at 1209.

In Laje, the plaintiff, a psychiatrist, had been discharged from a hospital and denied staff privileges. The trial court, while reserving its decision as to the legality of the plaintiff's termination, ordered the hospital to grant him staff privileges. The court held that this order was appealable as an injunction under § 1292(a)(1). See 564 F.2d at 1161.

Finding no merit in appellants' several arguments regarding the propriety of the reinstatement order, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Schulner v. Jack Eckerd Corp.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jun 6, 1983
706 F.2d 1113 (11th Cir. 1983)

Holding that an order to reinstate employee pending determination of damages was appealable under Section 1292 because it "was in the nature of an injunction".

Summary of this case from Police Ass'n, New Orleans v. New Orleans
Case details for

Schulner v. Jack Eckerd Corp.

Case Details

Full title:SEYMOUR SCHULNER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JACK ECKERD CORPORATION, ET AL.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jun 6, 1983

Citations

706 F.2d 1113 (11th Cir. 1983)

Citing Cases

Showtime/The Movie Channel, Inc. v. Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n

(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . ., granting, continuing, modifying,…

Schulner v. Jack Eckerd Corp.

From this Order, the Defendants took an interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) on the basis…