Legal Opinion
Gilbert Rendon, Cross-Appellant. And Joe Mike Zepeda, Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants v. At & T Technologies, Cross-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided September 18, 1989No. 88-5569PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:
In this pattern and practice disparate treatment 1 Title VII and section 1981 action, AT & T appeals a judgment in favor of a class of Black and Mexican-American telephone installers in AT & T’s San Antonio and Rio Grande operations. The district court found that the class plaintiffs proved AT & T’s “intent to discriminate against class members” and awarded in-junctive relief and damages. We find no error and affirm.
The class members cross-appeal the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses. We affirm the attorney’s fee award, but vacate the…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Hensley v. EckerhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1948
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Don Olenhouse v. Commodity Credit CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2008
- Messer v. MenoCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1997
- In Re Extradition of Curtis Andrew Howard. United States of America v. Curtis Andrew HowardCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Daniel Anderson, Jr. v. Douglas & Lomason Co., Inc., Douglas & Lomason Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.