Lorraine Le Beau, et al., Plaintiffs,andequal Employment Opportunity Commission,plaintiff-intervenor-appellant, v. Libbey-owens-ford Company, an Ohio Corporation, and Local19, United Glass and Ceramic Workers, Defendants-appellees, 808 F.2d 1272 (7th Cir. 1987)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit - 808 F.2d 1272 (7th Cir. 1987) 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.


Prior Report: 799 F.2d 1152.

ORDER

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...."

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)".

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,

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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.