Decker v. Anheuser-Busch, ANHEUSER-BUSC
| Decision Date | 15 March 1982 |
| Docket Number | D,No. 78-3493,ANHEUSER-BUSC,78-3493 |
| Citation | 670 F.2d 506 |
| Parties | 28 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 559, 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,536 Katherine DECKER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.efendant-Appellant. . * |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John P. McAdams, Peter W. Zinober, Tampa, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Stephen F. Hanlon, Levine, Freedman, Hirsch & Levinson, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Frank E. Hamilton, III, Hamilton & Douglas, Tampa, Fla., for amicus curiae Judith A. Petersen.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, BROWN, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN, VANCE, KRAVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY, POLITZ, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON, THOMAS A. CLARK **, WILLIAMS and GARWOOD, Circuit Judges.
The court permitted the late filing of Katherine Decker's application for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc because of allegations in brief and affidavit which included serious charges leveled at Decker's prior counsel of record and because of questions concerning the factual conclusions reached in the panel opinion. 632 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir. 1980). These relate to matters material to the question before the panel, the timeliness of the filing of Decker's Title VII suit. Our granting of the rehearing en banc vacates the panel opinion. 5th Cir. R. 17.
The judgment of the district court on the issue of timeliness of the filing of this suit is vacated and the matter is remanded for reconsideration of Anheuser-Busch's motion to dismiss after an appropriate evidentiary hearing. At this hearing specific inquiry is to be made into all relevant facts, including; the scope and extent of the relationship existing on February 12, 1976, between Katherine Decker and Judith A. Petersen; the date this relationship began; authorization, if any, for Petersen to receive mail on Decker's behalf; authorization, if any, for Petersen to open mail addressed to Decker in care of Petersen; the date Petersen personally received the envelope containing the right-to-sue notice at issue in this matter; the date Petersen notified Decker, if she did, of her receipt of the notice; and whether Decker received a copy of the notice separate from that addressed to her in care of Petersen and, if so, when. This list of inquiries is not intended to be exclusive; the district judge may expand the hearing into any other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polisoto v. Weinberger
...(1983) (90-day private sector filing period); Decker v. Anheuser-Busch, 632 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir.1980), vacated and remanded, 670 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc) (to elicit additional evidence as to whether an attorney-client relationship actually existed); Gonzalez v. Stanford Applied Engi......
-
Whatley v. Department of Educ.
...Title VII claim on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion, we reverse and remand for development of the relevant facts, see Decker v. Anheuser-Busch, 670 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), and for a determination of the law applicable to the facts thus Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is ......
-
Hornsby v. U.S. Postal Service
...103 S.Ct. 1431, 75 L.Ed.2d 790 (1983); Decker v. Anheuser-Busch, 632 F.2d 1221, 1223-24 (5th Cir.1980), vacated and remanded, 670 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1982) (en banc); Gonzales v. Stanford Applied Engineering, Inc., 597 F.2d 1298, 1299 (9th Cir.1979).5 See, e.g., St. Louis v. Alverno College, ......
-
Espinoza v. Missouri Pacific R. Co.
...by Judge Rubin in his dissent in the vacated opinion in Decker v. Anheuser-Busch, 632 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir.1980), vacated en banc, 670 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1982), this contemplates that the notice be given in such manner as to be received, it does not exact that the EEOC assure that the notice i......