Boureslan v. Aramco

Full title: ALI BOURESLAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ARAMCO, ARABIAN AMERICAN OIL CO…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Dec 23, 1988

863 F.2d 8 (5th Cir. 1988)

Opinion

No. 87-2206.

December 23, 1988.

James Field Tyson, Neal H. Paster, Perry Archer, Houston, Tex., for Boureslan.

Charles A. Shanor, Vincent J. Blackwood, Karen MacRae, Attys., EEOC, Washington, D.C., for intervenor EEOC.

Edward E. Potter, McGuiness Williams, Washington, D.C., for amicus EEAC.

John D. Roady, Linda Ottinger Headley, Hutcheson Grundy, Houston, Tex., for Aramco.

Lawrence Z. Lorber, John E. Parauda, Breed, Abbott Morgan, Washington, D.C., for amicus ASPA.

Cecil J. Olmstead, Steptoe Johnson, Washington, D.C., for amicus Rule of Law Committee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; James DeAnda, Judge.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POLITZ, KING, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, JONES, SMITH and DUHE, Circuit Judges.

ON SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC [2] (Opinion October 17, 1988, 5th Cir., 1988, 857 F.2d 1014)

BY THE COURT:

A member of the Court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestions 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.