TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

UNITED STATES of America v. H. K. PORTER COMPANY, INC.

7 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1020, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9281 United States of America v. H. K. Porter Company, Inc.

UNITED STATES of Am. v. H. K. Porter Co., 491 F.2d 1105 (5th Cir. 1974)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 19, 1974
Docket
No. 27703
Judges
Brown, Bell, Ingraham
Citations
491 F.2d 11057 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 10207 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 92811974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9597

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

This appeal was argued to the Court at which time the Court, from the bench, indicated that major changes in the seniority and other systems at the plant were required in order to achieve compliance with Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and defined broadly the nature of the changes so required. The Court directed the parties to confer for the purpose of providing the Court with a proposed decree accomplishing a conversion of the seniority system to one based upon plant seniority and making such other changes as the Court indicated were required, which the Court could adopt and, upon remand, instruct the district court to enter.

Thereafter, pursuant to the Court’s directions, the parties frequently conferred on this matter, including an extended further conference with the Court, in an effort to achieve a proposed decree. Those efforts have finally borne fruit, the parties having agreed that the attached decree accomplishes, in the most desirable manner, the changes which this Court indicated at oral argu *1106 ment were required in order to achieve compliance with Title VII. The Court has reviewed the parties’ proposed decree, and finds that it does indeed accomplish the directed changes in a proper manner.

Accordingly, the decision and decree of the district court are hereby vacated to the extent they are inconsistent with the attached, and the cause is remanded with instructions that the district court enter the attached decree.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

[Attached decree and appendices not printed.]

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1975: 21980: 119752026peak 1975 · 2

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list