{
  "id": 2529358,
  "name": "Olin Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Fair Employment Practices Commission, Defendant-Appellant-(Floyd Macklin, Defendant-Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Olin Corp. v. Fair Employment Practices Commission",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 71-255",
  "first_page": "921",
  "last_page": "922",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 3d 921"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 3559,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.743,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5212218936316364
    },
    "sha256": "9f8103af8a6e39350d0c57ff67cc52fd4eea48806d195d5344d04816fc85b1c0",
    "simhash": "1:cfa14393201ba4a5",
    "word_count": 547
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:05:48.814564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Olin Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Fair Employment Practices Commission, Defendant-Appellant\u2014(Floyd Macklin, Defendant-Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE T. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an action for administrative review under the Administrative Review Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, par. 264, et seq.), of a decision and order by the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, against the Olin Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the employer. The Commission reversed its Hearing Examiner and found that the employer had committed an unfair employment practice as defined in Section 3(a) of the Illinois Fair Employment Practices Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 48, pars. 851-867), by dismissing a black employee for assaulting a white employee. The Circuit Court of Madison County reversed the decision of the Commission, and this appeal is taken by the Commission from that order.\nThe overwhelming weight of evidence is that the employee discharged attacked and severely beat a fellow employee, who approximately one-half hour earlier had inadvertently used the word \u201cnigger\u201d in his presence, not addressed to him, but rather to describe a kind of music. Both employees worked in the smokeless powder area of the Olin complex, but not in the same building. The employee dismissed left his work area and went to the other\u2019s building soni\u00e9 100 yards away, a location where he had no legitimate reason to be. The evidence establishes the employer\u2019s investigation of the incident and determination of dismissal as being called for were reasonable, fair and routine.\nThe Hearing Officer recomended that the complaint be dismissed because there was \u201cinsufficient evidence to support the relief requested.\u201d The Commission rejected its Hearing Officer\u2019s recommendation and found that the employer committed an unfair employment practice in violation of the Act.\nThe Circuit Court found \u201cthat a preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding of a violationhy the company, and that the Hearing Officer\u2019s decision is supported by substantial evidence * * * [and] * * * assuming arguendo that the tests proposed by the Commission are correct, the court decrees that findings of fact and conclusions of the Commission are not supported by the evidence, and are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.\u201d\nAt the time of this incident a rule (1-4) of the employer provided: \u201cEmployees fighting or inciting a fight will be subject to immediate discharge.\u201d The action of Macklin constituted a clear violation of the foregoing rule and subjected him to immediate discharge. The violation of rule was the only discernible reason for discharging him and regardless of whether or not the white employee\u2019s \u2018language triggered the entire incident\u201d insofar as planting some unfortunate stimulus in Macklin\u2019s mind, there is insufficient evidence to categorize his apparently inadvertent language as inciting a fight.\nThe decision of the trial court of Madison County was in accord with the manifest weight of the evidence in this case.\nJudgment affirmed.\nEBERSPACHER and JONES, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE T. MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago, (Francis T. Crowe, Samuel E. Hirsch, and Donald S. Carnow, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Dorothy Kelley, of Olin Corporation, of East Alton, and Moller, Talent & Kuelthau, of St. Louis, Missouri, (Paul S. Kuelthau and Ronald K. Fisher, of counsel,) for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Olin Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Fair Employment Practices Commission, Defendant-Appellant\u2014(Floyd Macklin, Defendant-Appellee.)\n(No. 71-255;\nFifth District\nJune 8, 1972.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General, of Chicago, (Francis T. Crowe, Samuel E. Hirsch, and Donald S. Carnow, Assistant Attorneys General, of counsel,) for appellant.\nDorothy Kelley, of Olin Corporation, of East Alton, and Moller, Talent & Kuelthau, of St. Louis, Missouri, (Paul S. Kuelthau and Ronald K. Fisher, of counsel,) for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0921-01",
  "first_page_order": 943,
  "last_page_order": 944
}