AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

CAROL ANN CUPPLES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TRANSPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, AND THE TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

PER CURIAM:

In an individual action, Mrs. Carol Ann Cupples sued her former employer, who had discharged her, charging that as a female she had been the victim of discrimination with respect to hiring, job classifications, and promotions, as well as terms and conditions of employment, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) and (d); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3; 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1).

The District Court found for the employer, Cupples v. Transport Insurance Company, 371 F. Supp. 146 (1974). We affirm.

In suits alleging discrimination in employment practices as to identified individuals, findings of fact by district courts may be set aside only if unsupported by substantial evidence, Bolton v. Murray Envelope Corporation, 5 Cir., 1974, 493 F.2d 191. In all aspects, this case was clearly of that type and the Bolton rule mandates an affirmance. In the evidentiary posture of the case, the same would have been true had the trial court held the other way. This leaves no room for appellate revision of the judgment below.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CUPPLES v. TRANSPORT INSURANCE COMPANY
(Aug 21, 1974)