TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Joseph J. LEDOUX, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, and Consolidated Case 86-5376, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit, 833 F.2d 367 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 20, 1987
Docket
No. 367
Judges
Wald, Robinson, Mikva, Edwards, Ginsburg, Bork, Starr, Silberman, Buckley, Williams, Sentelle
Citations
833 F.2d 367833 F.2d 368266 U.S. App. D.C. 1181987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1781445 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 37,775

Opinion — Per Curiam

ORDER PER CURIAM.

Appellants’ suggestions for rehearing en banc have been circulated to the full Court. The taking of a vote thereon was requested. Thereafter, a majority of the judges of the Court in regular active service voted in favor of the suggestions.

* Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that appellants’ suggestions are granted and these cases will be reheard by the Court sitting en banc.

It is FURTHER ORDERED by the Court en banc, on its own motion, that the rehearing en banc shall be limited to the following issues:

(1) What is the meaning of “manifest imbalance” under Johnson v. Transportation Agency, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 1442 , 94 L.Ed.2d 615 (1987)? What is the proper application of that test in the instant case?

(2) Are there any constitutional claims properly before the court? If so, must these claims be reached?

(3) If there are constitutional claims to be reached, should they be addressed in the first instance by this court or the District Court?

(4) In considering any constitutional claims that may be at issue, the following questions must be addressed:

(a) What factual predicate is required for an affirmative action plan to pass muster under the Constitution?

(b) Is the required factual predicate a “strong basis in evidence,”

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 , 106 S.Ct. 1842 , 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986)? If so, what is the meaning of that test?

(c) Is the required factual predicate something other than a “strong basis in evidence”? If so, what is the meaning of the alternative test?

(5) What deference does this court owe to the findings of the District Court under Title VII and the Constitution?

(6) What are the parties’ respective burdens of proof under Title VII and the Constitution?

The parties’ briefs and oral. arguments should focus specifically on the foregoing *119 questions and no others. Although these questions will be fully considered, the parties are advised that the court may not find occasion to reach all of these issues raised thereby.

Oral arguments will be heard by the court sitting en banc on Wednesday, May 4, 1988, starting at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall file simultaneous briefs on or before March 9, 1988. Reply briefs may be filed by April 6, 1988. The initial briefs shall not exceed 40 typewritten pages. Reply briefs shall be limited to 10 typewritten pages.

* Judge Sentelle did not participate in the vote on whether to rehear these cases.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267 (1986) 578
Johnson v. Transp. Agency, Santa Clara Cty., 480 U.S. 616 (1987) 404

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