Sharon LUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the SINGER COMPANY, KEARFOTT DIVISION, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant-Appellant

696 F.2d 1266

34 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1372,
36 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,044
Sharon LUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The SINGER COMPANY, KEARFOTT DIVISION, a New Jersey
Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 80-6047.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 20, 1983.

Before FLETCHER, POOLE, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

1

The majority of the panel in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

2

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

3

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

4

The panel opinion of June 4, 1982, 678 F.2d 844, shall be amended as follows:

5

Delete from page 846, first column, lines 11-14: "Moreover, more than 7 years had elapsed between filing of the discrimination complaint and this court's review of the case. Id.⁴ These extraordinary circumstances are not duplicated in the instant case.". Also, delete the text of footnote 4.

6

Insert in its stead: "These circumstances are not duplicated in the instant case."Delete from page 846, first column, lines 28-33: "Further, there is no suggestion here of prejudicial delay. On these facts, we find the decision in Cleveland [v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 509 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir.1975) ], involving unauthorized Commission action and extraordinary delay, not controlling in the instant case."

7

Insert in its stead: "On these facts, we find the decision in Cleveland, involving Commission action unauthorized by regulation or statute, not controlling in the instant case."

8

POOLE, J., continues to dissent from the majority opinion.