Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-10685 JULIE DEFFENBAUGH WILLIAMS Plaintiff-Appellee Cross-Appellant versus WAL-MART STORES, INC, ET AL Defendants WAL-MART STORES, INC Defendant-Appellant Cross-Appellee - - - - - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas - - - - - ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion September 24, 1998, 5 Cir., 1998, _____F.3d____)
(February 26, 1999)
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*
BY THE COURT:
A member of the Court in active service having requested a
poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the
judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a
rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court
en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The
Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of
supplemental briefs.
________________________ Chief Judge King is recused and did not participate in this decision.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 13 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(analyzing evidence of employer's good-faith efforts of anti-discrimination in context of Rule 50(b) motion)
-
(considering management’s failure to respond effectively to complaints as evidence of lack of good faith)
-
(“Kolstad’s imputation holding was not such a sudden shift as to require, in fairness, giving Wal-Mart an opportunity to present additional evidence.”)
-
(“Kolstad explains, first, that no ‘egregiousness’ requirement exists for § 1981a(b)(1) punitive damages beyond the statutory ‘malice’ or ‘reckless disregard’ regarding actions’ legality under Title VII.”)
-
(Rule 50(b) motions may not raise issues not raised under Rule 50(a), but new grounds may be considered where, as here, the non-movant does not object)
-
(“When law changes in unanticipated ways during an appeal ... this court will generally remand for a new trial to give parties the benefit of the new law and the opportunity to present evidence relevant to that new standard.”)
-
(treating good-faith enforcement as affirmative defense)
-
(discussing “the good-faith de fense”)
Cited by 70 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals43
- Federal District Courts21
- Federal Specialty Courts1
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts4
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Ryan Elder, as Next Friend of C.E., a Minor v. Bexar County, Texas, Sheriff Javier Salazar, in His Official Capacity; Deputy Claudia Garza, in Her Individual and Official Capacity; and Corporal Marc Patino, in His Individual and Official Capacity
- R Construction Company v. Lavorgus Canady
- Charlene Carter v. Southwest Airlines Company
- Barnes v. Dresser L L C
- Charlene Carter v. Southwest Airlines Company
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. SkyWest Airlines Inc
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.