Case Name: Joyce GOOLSBY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. W. Michael BLUMENTHAL, as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1979-03-09
Citations: 590 F.2d 1369
Docket Number: No. 76-2198
Parties: Joyce GOOLSBY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. W. Michael BLUMENTHAL, as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 590
Pages: 1369–1377

Head Matter:
Joyce GOOLSBY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. W. Michael BLUMENTHAL, as Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 76-2198.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 9, 1979.
Steven F. Granberg, Gerald R. Tarutis, Emerson R. Marks, Jr., Alfred O. Bragg, III, Georgia Legal Services Programs, Macon, Ga., James A. Kushner, Los Angeles, Cal., Jack Greenberg, Charles E. Williams, III, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellants.
F. Robert Raley, Andrew W. McKenna, City Atty., Macon, Ga., Robert E. Kopp, Appellate Staff, Bruce G. Forrest, Neil H. Koslowe, Civ.Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees.
Stephen C. Chapple, U. S. Conference of Mayors, John P. Lagomarcino, Legislative Director and General Counsel, Washington, D. C., for Nat. Governors’ Ass’n Amicus Curiae.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN and VANCE, Circuit Judges.
Judges Thornberry and Morgan served on the three-judge panel which initially considered this case, and each wrote an opinion. See Goolsby v. Blumenthal, 581 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1978). Subsequently, the Omnibus Judgeship Bill, Public Law 95-486 (95th Congress) was approved October 20, 1978. In view of this, Judges Thornberry and Morgan did not participate in this decision.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
There having been a rehearing of this case en banc, it is the judgment of the court that the judgment of the district court from which this appeal is taken be and the same is AFFIRMED.
The en banc court adopts as its opinion all of the dissenting panel opinion of Judge Homer Thornberry except for the final portion thereof, designated paragraph IV.
The panel dissenting opinion adopted by the en banc court is attached as an appendix.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
APPENDIX
. Paragraph IV of the panel dissent was devoted to an issue which would be appropriate were the district court's judgment reversed. That alternative issue need not be, and is not, reached by the court en banc.
. 31 U.S.C. § 1221 et seq.