The Fifth Circuit giveth and the Fifth Circuit taketh away. We just talked about a poorly drafted decision in Owens v. Circassia Pharmaceuticals, No. 21-10760 (5th Cir. 5/13/2022) regarding an important employment law decision. See that post here. This Owens decision turned Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) on
The Fifth Circuit has resurrected the old pretext plus formula which we had once been dispensed with in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000). Reeves itself over-ruled a prior decision by the same Fifth Circuit. Some lessons, it seems, are never truly learned.
In the recent case of Owens v. Circassia
The Fifth Circuit has again applied a “pretext plus” formula to affirm a grant of summary judgment. In Harville v. City of Houston, Mississippi, No. 18-60117 (5th Cir. 8/16/2019), the City fired a deputy clerk. The City Clerk, Margaret Futral, testified that Mary Harville was an essential deputy clerk who worked on taxes.
It is a strange ruling in Alkhwaldeh v. Dow Chemical Company, 851 F.3d 422 (5th Cir. 2017). The three judge panel consistently refers to Mr. Alkhwaldeh by his first name, Ammar, not by his last name. The opinion also recognizes that the employer provided inconsistent explanations for the termination, but disregards those inconsistencies. Dow
There are so many cases discussing the burden of proof in discrimination cases. It is even more complicated when the plaintiff is alleging mixed motives. Mixed motive cases refers to those cases that have a mix of motives, unlawful and lawful. For example, a plaintiff who alleges she was overlooked for a promotion due to
I have talked here about how a judge’s personal background will affect his/her judicial opinions. Now, it seems one judge’s personal beliefs may reveal her own motivations. Judge Edith Jones, once considered for appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, has regularly affirmed dismissals and summary judgments in discrimination cases. She has expressed some impatience with
A Western District of Texas decision applies the discredited “pretext plus” analysis in resolving a motion for summary judgment. The decision also fails to construe fact inferences in favor of the non-movant.
Continue Reading San Antonio Federal Court Applies Pretext Plus