Corbitt v. Home Depot USA. Inc
| Decision Date | 27 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-12199.,08-12199. |
| Citation | 611 F.3d 1379 |
| Parties | David W. CORBITT, Alexander J. Raya, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Edward Gordon Hawkins, Hawkins Law Firm, LLC, Mobile, AL, Jeffrey W. Bennitt, Jeff W. Bennitt & Associates, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Stephen B. Kinnaird, Neal D. Mollen, Paul Hastings Janofsky Walker, Washington, DC, Cornelius R. Heusel, Joseph F. Lavigne, Jones, Walker Law Firm, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Anne Noel Occhialino, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Washington, DC, for E.E.O.C., Amicus Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (No. 06-00860-CV-CG-M); Callie V.S. Granade, Judge.
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, BIRCH, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
On July 19, 2010, the parties in the above-entitled appeal, filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal with Prejudice. Upon consideration of those matters contained in the parties' joint motion, and for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that said motion be and the same is hereby GRANTED. The panel opinion, published in 589 F.3d 1136, had already been vacated by our order granting rehearing en banc. Corbitt v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 598 F.3d 1259, 1259 (11th Cir.2010) ( en banc). The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions that the case be dismissed. See Key Enterprises of Delaware, Inc. v. Venice Hospital, 9 F.3d 893, 894 & 898-99 (11th Cir.1993) ( en banc) (per curiam). Each party is to bear its own costs and attorney's fees, subject to any separate agreement by the parties.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Livingston v. Marion Bank & Trust Co.
...F.3d 1136, 1153–56 (11th Cir.2009), opinion vacated, 598 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir.) (en banc), remanding with instructions to dismiss, 611 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir.2010) ; see also Oncale, 523 U.S. at 81, 118 S.Ct. 998 (noting that “intersexual flirtation” is not sexual harassment). Nonetheless, as t......
-
Pressley v. City of Anniston & Daryl Abernathy
...(11th Cir. 2009), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 598 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir.), and dismissed as settled on reh'g en banc, 611 F.3d 1379 (11th Cir. 2010)27 and Gupta as inapposite to the facts at issue here. More specifically, in the now-vacated Corbitt I decision, the Eleventh Circuit......
-
McKinzy v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...Corbitt II likewise found no actionable harassment under Title VII, that opinion was also subsequently vacated. Corbitt v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 611 F.3d 1379 (2010). The Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have expressly rejected the standard applied in Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., ......
-
U.S.A v. Tome
... ... Internet and meet women; and (5) accessing the Internet using his home" computer, as well as that of his employer, his wife, and his landlord. \xC2" ... ...