Case Name: Sergeant Mark McMANAWAY; David Rancourt; Brent Lasher; Jody Aistrop; William Bickell; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. KBR, INC.; Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc; KBR Technical Services, Inc.; Overseas Administration Services, Inc.; Service Employees International, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-28
Citations: 554 F. App'x 347
Docket Number: No. 12-20763
Parties: Sergeant Mark McMANAWAY; David Rancourt; Brent Lasher; Jody Aistrop; William Bickell; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. KBR, INC.; Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc; KBR Technical Services, Inc.; Overseas Administration Services, Inc.; Service Employees International, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, KING, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 554
Pages: 347–354

Head Matter:
Sergeant Mark McMANAWAY; David Rancourt; Brent Lasher; Jody Aistrop; William Bickell; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. KBR, INC.; Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc; KBR Technical Services, Inc.; Overseas Administration Services, Inc.; Service Employees International, Inc., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 12-20763.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 28, 2014.
David Michael Gunn, Chad Flores, Esq., William R. Peterson, Beck Redden, L.L.P., Patrick Mason Dennis, Esq., Michael Patrick Doyle, Doyle Raizner, L.L.P., Alan Brandt Daughtry, Esq., Houston, TX, Gabriel Adam Hawkins, Cohen & Malad, L.L.P., Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs-Ap-pellees.
Lawrence Steven Ebner, Esq., Raymond B. Biagini, Kurt James Hamrock, Mindy Lynn Rattan, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, L.L.P., Paul D. Clement, Jeffrey Matthew Harris, Bancroft, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, Warren W. Harris, Bracewell & Giuliani, L.L.P., Geoffrey L. Harrison, Esq., Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, KING, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
ORDER:
Treating the petition for rehearing en banc as a petition for panel rehearing, the petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. The court having been polled at the request of one of its members, and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed R.App. P. and 5th Cir. R. 35), the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.
In the en banc poll, five judges voted in favor of rehearing (Judges Jolly, Jones, Smith, Clement, and Owen), and nine judges voted against rehearing (Chief Judge Stewart and Judges Davis, Dennis, Prado, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Graves, and Higginson).