Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 182 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 1999)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1999-07-22
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • en Id. at 272. The court remarked that it was not banc
  • “Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment premised on an interracial relationship.”
  • “Title VII prohibits discrimination in employment premised on 15 an interracial relationship.”

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
30 opinions
WILLIAMS v. WAL-MART STORES INC.,182 F.3d 333(5th Cir. 1999)
JULIE DEFFENBAUGH WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT, v. WAL-MART
STORES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS, WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT-CROSS-APPELLEE.
No. 97-10685
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 22, 1999
Mark C. Brodeur, Dallas, TX, for Williams.

Jimmy Preston Wrotenbery, Kevin D. Jewell, Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson, Wrotenbery Helfand, Houston, TX, for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Geoffrey Lundeen Carter, EEOC, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, for EEOC, Amicus Curiae.

Allison Anne Jones, Davidson, Nix Jones, Shreveport, LA, Paula Ann Brantner, San Francisco, CA, for Nat. Emp. Lawyers Ass'n, Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Before POLITZ, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.fn*
PER CURIAM:
[1] The en banc court reinstates the panel opinion, except for Part II C relating to punitive damages, and remands this matter to the panel for appropriate disposition of the punitive damages issue in light of the intervening decision inKolstad v. AmericanDental Ass'n,119 S.Ct. 2118(1999).
  1. Carolyn Dineen King, Chief Judge, is recused. ↩