Case Name: Sharon LUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SINGER COMPANY, KEARFOTT DIVISION, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1983-01-20
Citations: 696 F.2d 1266
Docket Number: No. 80-6047
Parties: Sharon LUTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The SINGER COMPANY, KEARFOTT DIVISION, a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before FLETCHER, POOLE, and CAN-BY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 696
Pages: 1266–1267

Head Matter:
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 CAN-BY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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.
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).
The petition for rehearing is hereby denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.
The panel opinion of June 4, 1982, 678 F.2d 844, shall be amended as follows:
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.
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."
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."
POOLE, J., continues to dissent from the majority opinion.