Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

85-1242 (1987)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Number: 85-1242 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 07, 1987
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 808 F.2d 1272 42 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1895 Lorraine LE BEAU, et al., Plaintiffs, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD COMPANY, An Ohio Corporation, and Local 19, United Glass and Ceramic Workers, Defendants-Appellees. No. 85-1242. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Jan. 7, 1987. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; James B. Parsons, Judge. Before BAUE
More

808 F.2d 1272

42 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1895

Lorraine LE BEAU, et al., Plaintiffs,
and
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant,
v.
LIBBEY-OWENS-FORD COMPANY, An Ohio Corporation, and Local
19, United Glass and Ceramic Workers, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 85-1242.

United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.

Jan. 7, 1987.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division; James B. Parsons, Judge.

Before BAUER, Chief Judge and CUMMINGS, WOOD, CUDAHY, POSNER, COFFEY, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges.

1

Prior Report: 799 F.2d 1152.

ORDER

2

This case is before the court on petitions for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed by Libbey-Owens-Ford Company and Local 19, United Glass and Ceramic Workers. On consideration of the petitions for rehearing, the court on its own motion modifies the opinion as follows:On page 1159, line 5 of footnote nine, delete the sentence beginning "The first mention...."

3

On page 1160, 2d col. line 15, the citation to the "1982 District Court Opinion at 27 n. 5" is modified to "1982 District Court Opinion at 6 n. 2 p (5)".

4

On further consideration of the petitions for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc, a vote of the active members of the court was requested and less than a majority* of the members of the court have voted to grant a rehearing en banc. A majority of the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petitions for rehearing. Accordingly,

5

IT IS ORDERED that the aforesaid petitions for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc be, and the same are, hereby DENIED.

*

Chief Judge Bauer, and Circuit Judges Posner, Coffey and Easterbrook voted to grant petitions for rehearing en banc. Senior Circuit Judge Eschbach was a member of the original panel, but did not participate in the vote on suggestion for rehearing en banc

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer