George Dulin v. Bd of Cmsnr of the Greenwood, No. 10-60095 (5th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on July 8, 2011.

Download PDF
Case: 10-60095 Document: 00511604120 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/15/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED September 15, 2011 No. 10-60095 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GEORGE DULIN, Plaintiff - Appellant v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE GREENWOOD LEFLORE HOSPITAL, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. 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 (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 Case: 10-60095 Document: 00511604120 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/15/2011 No. 10-50614 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 ( 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 (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. ยง 1981. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this order. 2
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.