# Keenan v. City of Philadelphia

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · December 17, 1992 · 983 F.2d 459

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9006904

## Case

- **Full name:** Carol KEENAN and Lawrence Gerrard and Ernest Gilbert and Walter Smith and Daniel Rosenstein v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and Philadelphia Police Department and Kevin Tucker and James Gallagher and Roy Stoner and Robert Grasso and Victor Marcone and Ralph J. Teti, Esquire, Kevin Tucker, James Gallagher, Roy Stoner, City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia Police Department and Robert Grasso
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** December 17, 1992
- **Citations:** 983 F.2d 459; 1992 WL 370033
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Alito, Becker, Cowen, Greenberg, Higginbotham, Hutchinson, Lewis, Mansmann, Nygaard, Rica, Roth, Sci, Sloviter, Stapleton
- **Cited by:** 235 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9006904

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding sufficient evidence of purposeful gender discrimination where the plaintiff detective was prevented from taking or participating in several assignments and the captain said on one of those occasions that “this is no job for a woman”
- holding that defendants waived argument that evidence of their financial status is a prerequisite to punitive damages because they failed to present the argument "with sufficient specificity to alert the district court”
- holding that defendants waived argument that evidence of theirfinancial status is a prerequisite to punitive damages because they failed to present the argument "with sufficient specificity to alert the district court"
- rejecting the defendant's contention that the arbitration hearing between the plaintiff and the defendant "was an optional internal administrative proceeding" and would thus be an abuse of discretion "to grant any attorneys' fees in respect of the time spent on the labor arbit…

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING WITH SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Jan. 21, 1993.
Present: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, STAPLETON, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, HUTCHINSON, SCI-RICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, Circuit Judges, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Senior Circuit Judge. *
The petition for rehearing filed by Appellants, having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this Court and to all the other available circuit judges in active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.
MANSMANN, Circuit Judge, would have granted rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9006904. Public record. Not legal advice.