Case: Patricia Ann HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellee
Abbreviation: Hemphill v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Decision Date: 1993-01-15
Docket Number: No. 91-7112
Citation: 299 U.S. App. D.C. 184
Volume: 299
Reporter: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Parties: Patricia Ann HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellee.
Judges: Before: RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SILBERMAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Pages: 184–188

Head Matter:
982 F.2d 572
Patricia Ann HEMPHILL, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Appellee.
No. 91-7112.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Nov. 20, 1992.
Decided Jan. 15, 1993.
As Amended Jan. 15, 1993.
Thomas Fortune Fay was on the brief, for appellant.
Bruce P. Heppen, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, with whom Robert L. Polk, Gen. Counsel, and Gerard J. Stief, Associate Gen. Counsel, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority were on the brief, for appellee.
Before: RUTH BADER GINSBURG, SILBERMAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
It is the judgment of this court, in which all three judges concur, that the judgment of the district court be vacated and the case remanded for a new trial. As explained in the opinions of the three judges that follow, the "claims-minded-plaintiff" instruction given by the magistrate judge was improper.