Ha Jenny Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corp., Ha Jenny Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corp., Ha Jenny Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corp., 156 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Ha Jenny Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corp., Ha Jenny Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corp., Ha Jenny Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corp., 156 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. California Psychiatric Transitions, Inc. (caed, 2009-08-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. California Psychiatric Transitions, Inc.
E.D. Cal. · 2009 · confidence medium
Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., 140 F.3d 1299, 1303-05 (9th Cir.1998), amended 156 F.3d 988, 988-89 (9th Cir.1998) (holding that merely negligent calculations with respect to taking leave did not support punitive damages).
discussed Cited "see" Talamantes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
N.D. Cal. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corp., 140 F.3d 1299 , as 27 amended, 156 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 1998). 1 Defendant contends that Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence that rises to the high 2 || standard of vile wretchedness as required for the awarding of punitive damages.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ha Jenny Ngo
v.
Reno Hilton Resort Corporation, D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corporation, Ha Jenny Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corporation, D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corporation, Ha Jenny Ngo v. Reno Hilton Resort Corporation, D/B/A Reno Hilton Hilton Hotels Corporation
96-15553.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Sep 23, 1998.
156 F.3d 988
Published

156 F.3d 988

74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,517

Ha Jenny NGO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RENO HILTON RESORT CORPORATION, d/b/a Reno Hilton; Hilton
Hotels Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
Ha Jenny NGO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RENO HILTON RESORT CORPORATION, d/b/a Reno Hilton; Hilton
Hotels Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Ha Jenny NGO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RENO HILTON RESORT CORPORATION, d/b/a Reno Hilton; Hilton
Hotels Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 95-16909, 95-16911 and 96-15553.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 23, 1998.

Scott M. Mahoney, Hilton Gaming Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada, for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

Timothy Sears, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-00368-HDM.

Before: BROWNING, SKOPIL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

1

The opinion issued on April 9, 1998 [140 F.3d 1299] is hereby amended as follows:

Slip op. at 3289 [140 F.3d at 1304]:

2

1. Replace the opening sentence of the first full paragraph with the following sentence:

3

"In adopting this standard, we join five other circuits that also require plaintiffs seeking punitive damages under Title VII to make a showing beyond the level of intentional discrimination required for compensatory damages."

4

2. Insert "Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 139 F.3d 958, 961-62 (D.C.Cir.1998) (en banc) (concluding that "the evidence of the defendant's culpability must exceed what is needed to show intentional discrimination" to support a punitive damage award under title VII)" between "See " and the cite to McKinnon.

Slip op. at 3289 n.9 [140 F.3d at 1304]:

5

Delete the "D.C.," in the first sentence and the entire second sentence.

6

With these changes, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

7

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).

8

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.