Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

DULIN v. BD. OF COM'RS OF GREENWOOD LEFLORE HOSP., 657 F.3d 251 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: infco20110915140 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2011
Summary: PER CURIAM: ON PETITION FOR REHEARING The petition for rehearing is GRANTED. We WITHDRAW our earlier opinion, Dulin v. Board of Commissioners of Greenwood Leflore Hospital, 646 F.3d 232 (5th Cir.2011), in its entirety, and substitute the following: We have reconsidered our opinion in the light of the Supreme Court's holding in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 , 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) that a "plaintiff's prima facie case [of discrimination]
More

PER CURIAM:

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

The petition for rehearing is GRANTED. We WITHDRAW our earlier opinion, Dulin v. Board of Commissioners of Greenwood Leflore Hospital, 646 F.3d 232 (5th Cir.2011), in its entirety, and substitute the following:

We have reconsidered our opinion in the light of the Supreme Court's holding in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) that a "plaintiff's prima facie case [of discrimination], combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer's asserted justification [for termination] is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated." Upon reconsideration, we now conclude that there is a triable issue of fact that requires a jury to decide fact and credibility issues. See id. at 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097 ("Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge." (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We hold that the district court reversibly erred in granting judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) to the Board of Commissioners on Dulin's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer