# Mabel A. King v. James F. Palmer, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · February 18, 1986 · 778 F.2d 878

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474285

## Case

- **Full name:** Mabel A. KING, Appellant, v. James F. PALMER, Director, D.C. Department of Corrections, Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** February 18, 1986
- **Citations:** 778 F.2d 878; 250 U.S. App. D.C. 257
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Wright, Edwards, McGowan, Robinson, Wald, Mikva, Ginsburg, Bork, Scalia, Starr, Silberman, Buckley
- **Cited by:** 60 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474285

## Opinion text

On Rehearing En Banc
Before: ROBINSON, Chief Judge; WRIGHT, WALD, MIKVA, EDWARDS, GINSBURG, BORK, SCALIA, STARR, SILBERMAN and BUCKLEY, Circuit Judges; McGOWAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
ORDER *
Per Curiam.
The suggestion for rehearing en banc of appellees has been circulated to the full Court and no member has requested the taking of a vote thereon. Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED, by the Court, that the suggestion is denied.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the motion of the United States for an extension of time within which to file a brief as amicus curiae regarding rehearing en banc, it is
ORDERED, by the Court en banc, that the motion is denied.
BORK, Circuit Judge, with whom Circuit Judges GINSBURG, SCALIA, STARR, SILBERMAN and BUCKLEY join:
In voting to deny the suggestion of rehearing en banc and the motion of the United States for an extension of time within which to file a brief as amicus curiae regarding rehearing, we noted the concern of the United States that the panel decision “may represent a significant expansion of Title VII coverage.” The United States wished time to consider whether to file a brief addressing the question whether Title VII affords a claim for relief for sex-based discrimination to a woman who alleges that she was denied a promotion in favor of another woman who had a sexual relationship with their supervisor. Rehearing of that issue en banc would be inappropriate because no party challenged that application of Title VII on appeal, and the issue was not briefed or argued to the panel. Indeed, the losing parties’ petition for rehearing and suggestion of rehearing en banc again did not raise that issue. Because the point was not before the panel on appeal, there is no occasion to address the issue en banc.
Chief Judge Robinson did not participate in this order.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9474285. Public record. Not legal advice.