Patricia A. DIXON v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION
47 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1881, 47 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,319 Patricia A. Dixon v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Opinion
ORDER On May 23, 1988, the United States Supreme Court entered its order, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1990 , 100 L.Ed.2d 222 granting the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacating our judgment, and remanding this case to us for reconsideration in light of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Commercial Office Products Co., 486 U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1666 , 100 L.Ed.2d 96 (1988).
In obedience to the mandate, we have reconsidered this case under Commercial Office Products.
We are now of the opinion that the charge in this case was timely filed and that our decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of the complaint as time-barred was in error.
It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that this case shall be, and the same hereby is, remanded to the district court with the instruction that the summary judgment in favor of Westinghouse be vacated and that plaintiff’s action be reinstated on the docket.
ENTERED at the direction of Judge HALL with the concurrences of Judge WIDENER and Judge HAYNSWORTH.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.