Eugene Vislisel v. Thomas K. Turnage, Adm'r of Vets. Affairs, 930 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Eugene Vislisel v. Thomas K. Turnage, Adm'r of Vets. Affairs, 930 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
17 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC (cand, 2019-10-01)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Izett v. Crown Asset Management, LLC
N.D. Cal. · 2019 · confidence medium
The 6 business record exception does not require that a party establish precisely when a record was made 7 or specifically by whom the record was made; instead, it simply requires “that the document be 8 made at or near the time of the act or event it purports to record.” United States v. Ray, 930 F.2d 9 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotations omitted), as amended on denial of reh’g (Apr. 23, 10 1991).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Samantha B. v. Hampstead School District (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.N.H. · 2009 · confidence medium
G.D., 930 F.2d at 948 (quotations, citations, and emphasis omitted) (listing cases).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bell v. Potter
D. Mass. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Schoffstall v. Henderson, 223 F.3d 818, 825 (8th Cir. 2000) (did not hold that ordering an FFD could not be the basis for a retaliation claim, but only that the specific facts of the case did not support that finding); Vislisel v. Turnage, 930 F.2d 9, 10 (8th Cir.1991) (summary judgment upheld because of failure to show a causal connection between the FFD and the plaintiffs discrimination complaint); Campbell v. Prince George’s County Maryland, 2001 WL 706039 at *6 (D.Md. 2001) (found that the plaintiff had established her prima facie case of retaliation and that it is a question for the…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Bakewell v. Stephen F. Austin State University
E.D. Tex. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Aikens, 460 U.S. at 714-17 , 103 S.Ct. at 1481-82 , 75 L.Ed.2d at 408-11 ; Irby v. Sullivan, 737 F.2d 1418, 1426 (5th Cir.1984); see also Vislisel v. Turnage, 930 F.2d 9, 10 (8th Cir.1991); Harrison v. Associates Corp. of N. Am., 917 F.2d 195, 198-99 (5th Cir.1990). 245.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Eugene VISLISEL, Appellant,
v.
Thomas K. TURNAGE, Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
90-2653.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Apr 9, 1991.
930 F.2d 9
Eugene Vislisel, pro se., Paul C. Lillios, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for appellee.
Arnold, Beam, Per Curiam, Wollman.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Eugene Vislisel, who was an applicant for employment at the Veterans Administration Medical Center at Iowa City, Iowa (VAMC), appeals from an order of the district court [1] granting summary judgment on his Title VII claim in favor of Thomas K. Turnage, Administrator of Veterans Affairs. 759 F.Supp. 1366. We affirm.

The district court held that the VAMC had not retaliated against Vislisel for filing a discrimination complaint against the VAMC and a former employer by requiring him to submit to a physical, including, if necessary, a psychiatric examination. While expressing doubt whether referral for a medical examination was an adverse employment action giving rise to a Title VII action, applying the analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), the court concluded that the request for the examination was not prompted by Vislisel’s discrimination complaints, but by his behavior. The court characterized Vis-lisel’s behavior exhibited to VAMC personnel as “overly aggressive, demanding, belligerent, obnoxious, ... hostile, argumentative, and peculiar.” In the alternative, the court held that Vislisel’s claim would fail even if the VAMC had considered the complaints, because the court was convinced that given his behavior, the VAMC would[*10] have requested the examination m any event. See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989).

On appeal Vislisel argues that the court erred in applying the McDonnell Douglas analysis because there was direct evidence of discrimination. In the alternative, he argues that under the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the court erred in finding that the VAMC had rebutted his prima facie case of discrimination. Because this case was fully tried on the merits, we need not review these arguments. Rather, this court need only review the “ultimate factual issue” of whether the district court’s finding of no discrimination was clearly erroneous. United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1481, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). Our review of the record convinces us that the district court’s finding that the VAMC did not retaliate against Vislisel is amply supported by the record. [2]

Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s thorough opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable David R. Hansen, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.

2

. We note that in Jackson v. St. Joseph State Hospital, 840 F.2d 1387, 1391 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892, 109 S.Ct. 228, 102 L.Ed.2d 218 (1988), this court stated that "Title VII protection from retaliation for filing a complaint does not clothe the complainant with immunity for ... uncivil conduct.... The public ... should not have to suffer waste of public funds in countenancing the arrogant and bizarre conduct exhibited by [appellant].” Nor was Visli-sel’s behavior protected by the first amendment. Cf. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983).