Case Name: 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
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1987-01-07
Citations: 808 F.2d 1272
Docket Number: No. 85-1242
Parties: 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.
Judges: Before BAUER, Chief Judge and CUMMINGS, HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., CUDAHY, POSNER, COFFEY, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 808
Pages: 1272–1273

Head Matter:
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.
Before BAUER, Chief Judge and CUMMINGS, HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., CUDAHY, POSNER, COFFEY, FLAUM, EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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 11 (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.