Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Eighth Circuit

Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

493 F.3d 1002, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18190, 2007 WL 2121980

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 18, 2007

Docket06 2238

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 493 F.3d 1002 (Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 493 F.3d 1002, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18190, 2007 WL 2121980 (8th Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied. Judge Murphy, Judge Bye, Judge Melloy, and Judge Smith would grant the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Gruender, Judge Benton, and Judge Shepherd did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge, with whom BYE, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc.

Because the panel’s opinion renders a statutory provision in the ADA superfluous, overlooks EEOC guidance, and is contrary to the Supreme Court’s admonition in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 152 L.Ed.2d 589 (2002), that preferences are a valid means to achieve the statutory goals, I respectfully dissent from the denial of an en banc rehearing of this case.

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

ORDER

The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The petition for rehearing by the panel is also denied. Judge Murphy, Judge Bye, Judge Melloy, and Judge Smith would grant the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Gruender, Judge Benton, and Judge Shepherd did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge, with whom BYE, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc.

Because the panel’s opinion renders a statutory provision in the ADA superfluous, overlooks EEOC guidance, and is contrary to the Supreme Court’s admonition in US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 152 L.Ed.2d 589 (2002), that preferences are a valid means to achieve the statutory goals, I respectfully dissent from the denial of an en banc rehearing of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 F.3d 1002, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18190, 2007 WL 2121980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huber-v-wal-mart-stores-inc-ca8-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack