Muriel B. Seymour and David Seymour, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. Summa Vista Cinema, Inc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees

ORDER

Appellants’ petition for rehearing is granted in part and the opinion filed February 6, 1987, 809 F.2d 1385 , is amended as follows:

The sentence beginning on page 6, line 17 of the slip opinion [page 1388, 1st col., line 20] beginning with the words “Even absent direct proof ...” should be deleted and replaced with the following:

The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. No active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc (Fed.R.App.P. 35).

In all other respects the petition for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc is denied.

For example, Alexander did not hold regular sales meetings of its account executives or sales people. Shestak did not receive an employee manual or receive any training from Alexander. Moreover, Shestak testified he was unaware of any Alexander policy regarding controls on outside sales and the evidence suggests Alexander did not require written notification of such sales.