Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc

Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, 188 F.3d 278 (5th Cir. 1999)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1999-03-03
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • analyzing evidence of employer's good-faith efforts of anti-discrimination in context of Rule 50(b) motion
  • considering management’s failure to respond effectively to complaints as evidence of lack of good faith
  • “Kolstad’s imputation holding was not such a sudden shift as to require, in fairness, giving Wal-Mart an opportunity to present additional evidence.”
  • Rule 50(b) motions may not raise issues not raised under Rule 50(a), but new grounds may be considered where, as here, the non-movant does not object
  • “Kolstad explains, first, that no ‘egregiousness’ requirement exists for § 1981a(b)(1) punitive damages beyond the statutory ‘malice’ or ‘reckless disregard’ regarding actions’ legality under Title VII.”
  • “When law changes in unanticipated ways during an appeal ... this court will generally remand for a new trial to give parties the benefit of the new law and the opportunity to present evidence relevant to that new standard.”
  • Wal-Mart’s policy of encouraging employees to contact management with grievances did not suffice to establish good faith efforts as a matter of law, in light of Wal-Mart’s failure to respond effectively to plaintiff’s complaints
  • “When law changes in unanticipated ways during an appeal . . . this court will generally remand for a new trial to give parties the benefit of the new law and the opportunity to present evidence relevant to that new standard.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
78 opinions
                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                          FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT



                               No. 97-10685


     JULIE DEFFENBAUGH WILLIAMS

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee
                                         Cross-Appellant

     versus

     WAL-MART STORES, INC, ET AL

                                         Defendants

     WAL-MART STORES, INC

                                         Defendant-Appellant
                                         Cross-Appellee

                               - - - - -
        Appeals from the United States District Court for the
                      Northern District of Texas
                               - - - - -

 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
   (Opinion September 24, 1998, 5 Cir., 1998, _____F.3d____)

                           (February 26, 1999)

Before POLITZ, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ,
       WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES,
       STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.*

BY THE COURT:

          A member of the Court in active service having requested a

poll on the suggestion for rehearing en banc and a majority of the

judges in active service having voted in favor of granting a

rehearing en banc,

          IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court

en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed.                The

Clerk    will   specify   a   briefing     schedule   for   the   filing    of

supplemental briefs.

________________________
Chief Judge King is recused and did not participate in this
decision.