Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours Co.

14 F. App'x 351
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 2001
DocketNo. 98-6317, 98-6319, 99-5125
StatusPublished

This text of 14 F. App'x 351 (Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours Co., 14 F. App'x 351 (6th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

In the above-entitled appeal, the Supreme Court has now reversed and remanded for reconsideration our Court’s decision in Section V “Statutory Limitation of Front Pay,” a decision rendered May 26, 2000. In Section V of our decision, we recommended that on the issue of front pay that a prior decision of our Court in Hudson v. Reno, 130 F.3d 1193 (6th Cir. 1997), be overruled as an erroneous decision. We noted that we were bound by the rules and customs of the Sixth Circuit to follow that decision. Our Court declined to grant en banc rehearing and the Supreme Court has now reversed and remanded on this point.

We now remand the case to the District Court on the issue of front pay for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s [352]*352decision in this case, and we also remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration of the issues referred to in Section VII of our opinion of May 26, 2000. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Accordingly, it is so ORDERED.

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

Related

Hudson v. Reno
130 F.3d 1193 (Sixth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 F. App'x 351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pollard-v-ei-dupont-de-nemours-co-ca6-2001.