Eric Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

485 F.3d 1053, 19 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 416, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9288
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 24, 2007
Docket04-17295
StatusPublished

This text of 485 F.3d 1053 (Eric Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eric Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 485 F.3d 1053, 19 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 416, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9288 (9th Cir. 2007).

Opinion

485 F.3d 1053

Eric BATES; Bert Enos; Babaranti Oloyede; Eric Bumbala; Edward Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., dba UPS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-17295.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

April 24, 2007.

Caroline A. Jacobs, Esq., Oakland, CA, Guy B. Wallace, Esq., Todd M. Schneider, Schneider & Wallace, San Francisco, CA, Laurence W. Paradis, Esq., Disability Rights Advocates, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Mark A. Perry, Esq., Christopher J. Martin, Esq., Susan B. Burr, Esq., Rachel A. Clark, Esq, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Prior report: 465 F.3d 1069 (2006)

ORDER

SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused regular active judges of this court,1 it is ordered that this case be reheard by the en banc court pursuant to Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to this court or any district court of the Ninth Circuit, except to the extent adopted by the en banc court.

Notes:

1

Judge Wardlaw is recused

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
465 F.3d 1069 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
485 F.3d 1053, 19 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 416, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-bates-v-united-parcel-service-inc-ca9-2007.