29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 913, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,842 Rose Harrell, on Behalf of Herself & All Persons Similarly Situated v. N. Elec. Co., Div. of Sunbeam Corp., 679 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 913, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,842 Rose Harrell, on Behalf of Herself & All Persons Similarly Situated v. N. Elec. Co., Div. of Sunbeam Corp., 679 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
12 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: William O. Mozee v. Jeffboat, Incorporated, and Harold Barnes v. Jeffboat, Incorporated (ca7, 1984-10-12)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see, e.g." William O. Mozee v. Jeffboat, Incorporated, and Harold Barnes v. Jeffboat, Incorporated
7th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Harrell v. Northern Electric Co., 672 F.2d 444 , modified on other grounds, 679 F.2d 31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1037 , 103 S.Ct. 449 , 74 L.Ed.2d 603 (1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." H. Anita Lincoln, Cross-Appellant v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, and Clyde W. Hall and Evanel R. Terrell, Cross-Appellees (2×)
11th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
To make a prima facie case, the plaintiff must establish the four familiar elements required by McDonnell Douglas: (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant’s qualifications. 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d at 677 ; see also Harrell v. Northern Electric Co., 5 Cir.1982, 672 F.2d 444, 449 , m…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
29 Fair empl.prac.cas. 913, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,842 Rose Harrell, on Behalf of Herself and All Persons Similarly Situated
v.
Northern Electric Company, Division of Sunbeam Corporation
80-3781.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jun 21, 1982.
679 F.2d 31
Published

679 F.2d 31

29 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 913,
29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,842
Rose HARRELL, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NORTHERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIVISION OF SUNBEAM CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80-3781.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 1982.

Alison Steiner, Martha Bergmark, Hattiesburg, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant.

Walter W. Christy, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion April 5, 1982, 5 Cir., 1982, 672 F.2d 444)

Before POLITZ and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.[*]

PER CURIAM:

1

We have re-examined our holding in light of the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court in Pullman-Standard v. Swint, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). Reviewing the record in accordance with the teachings of Pullman-Standard v. Swint relative to ultimate and subsidiary facts, and in light of the other authorities cited, we conclude that, except as modified herein, the result and mandate are correct. They are reaffirmed.

2

We reaffirm our conclusion that the trial judge erred in his assessment of the disparate impact issue. The error committed was essentially an error of law; the district court erred in its application of controlling legal principles to stipulated facts. The district court also erred in its evaluation of the stipulated facts as they related to the disparate impact issue. To the extent the assessment was factual it was clearly erroneous, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). To the extent the assessment involved legal conclusions, it was legally incorrect.

3

We also reaffirm our conclusion relative to Rose Harrell's claims of discriminatory treatment. Again, the trial judge's factual assessment was clearly erroneous and his legal assessment was in error.

4

The Petition for Rehearing asserts that the rendering of judgment in favor of Betty Dagons, Patricia Ann Pittman and Tommie Jean Smith Hinton is not consistent with the bifurcated status of this litigation. On reconsideration, we agree. That portion of the opinion rendering judgment in favor of Dagons, Pittman and Hinton is recalled and such claims as they may present shall be considered on remand when the district court determines the members of the class and determines the damages and other remedies to which the class, and the members thereof, are entitled.

5

In all other respects, the Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 16) the Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

*

Jack M. Gordon, District Judge of the Eastern District of Louisiana, sitting by designation, was a member of the panel which heard oral argument. Because of his death on March 4, 1982, this case is being decided by a quorum, 28 U.S.C. § 46(d)