ha-jenny-ngo-v-reno-hilton-resort-corporation-dba-reno-hilton-hilton ( 1998 )

156 F.3d 988

74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,517

Ha Jenny NGO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RENO HILTON RESORT CORPORATION, d/b/a Reno Hilton; Hilton
Hotels Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.
Ha Jenny NGO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RENO HILTON RESORT CORPORATION, d/b/a Reno Hilton; Hilton
Hotels Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
Ha Jenny NGO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RENO HILTON RESORT CORPORATION, d/b/a Reno Hilton; Hilton
Hotels Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

Nos. 95-16909, 95-16911 and 96-15553.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 23, 1998.

Scott M. Mahoney, Hilton Gaming Corporation, Las Vegas, Nevada, for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.

Timothy Sears, Washington, DC, for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-94-00368-HDM.

Before: BROWNING, SKOPIL, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

1

The opinion issued on April 9, 1998 [140 F.3d 1299] is hereby amended as follows:

Slip op. at 3289 [140 F.3d at 1304]:

2

1. Replace the opening sentence of the first full paragraph with the following sentence:

3

"In adopting this standard, we join five other circuits that also require plaintiffs seeking punitive damages under Title VII to make a showing beyond the level of intentional discrimination required for compensatory damages."

4

2. Insert "Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 139 F.3d 958, 961-62 (D.C.Cir.1998) (en banc) (concluding that "the evidence of the defendant's culpability must exceed what is needed to show intentional discrimination" to support a punitive damage award under title VII)" between "See " and the cite to McKinnon.

Slip op. at 3289 n.9 [140 F.3d at 1304]:

5

Delete the "D.C.," in the first sentence and the entire second sentence.

6

With these changes, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

7

The full court has been advised of the suggestion for an en banc rehearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b).

8

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.