Fishgold v. Sullivan Dry Dock & Repair Corp.
District Court, E.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
ABRUZZO, District Judge.
In this particular case it is not in dispute that the plaintiff has complied with all of the technical requirements of the statute. He was a welder working for the defend*26ant. I find that his employment was permanent and steady. He left his employment for induction into the armed service of the United States, and had to leave his position for that purpose. He received a certificate in compliance with the statute, that he had been discharged honorably. It is neither in dispute that he is qualified to perform the duties of the position of welder — he was a first class…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Droste v. Nash-Kelvinator CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1946
- Olin Industries, Inc. v. BarnettDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 1946
- Freeman v. General Motors Corp.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1949
- Fishgold v. Sullivan Drydock & Repair Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1946