DELORES J. ROBBINS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WHITE-WILSON MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the prior distinction between subsidiary and ultimate facts was rejected by the Supreme Court, and applying the correct clearly erroneous standard, the evidence supported the district court's finding of no unlawful discrimination.
This case was remanded by the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Pullman-Standard, Inc. v. Swint. The court had previously distinguished be…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Unlawful Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
Before HILL, Circuit Judge, SMITH **, Judge, and HENDERSON, Circuit Judge.
JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge:
An opinion of this court was handed down on November 12, 1981, Robbins v. White-Wilson Medical Clinic, Inc., 660 F. 2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1981). Upon the petition of White-Wilson Medical Clinic, Inc., the Supreme Court, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2229, 72 L.Ed.2d 842 granted the writ of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the case to us for further consideration in light of Pullman-Standard, Inc. v. Swint, 454 U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982).
Memoranda have been solicited and received from counsel and, as directed, we have reconsidered the case.
We reaffirm the statement made by the majority in the now vacated opinion, “We agree that the evidence supports these findings of subsidiary fact, .. . . ” In our original opinion, we distinguished between subsidiary facts and ultimate facts in describing our standard of review. Under the dichotomy formerly applied in this circuit, the “ultimate fact” of whether the employer discriminated against appellant was not subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review. This differentiation between subsidiary and ultimate facts, however, was specifically rejected in Pullman-Standard, Inc. v. Swint.
Applying the appropriate clearly erroneous standard of review, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the finding of the district judge that the appellant’s failure to obtain employment with appellee was not the result of unlawful discrimination against appellant. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
**
Honorable Edward S. Smith, Judge for the U. S. Court of Claims, sitting by designation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lincoln v. Bd. OF Regents OF THE Univ. Sys. OF Ga., 697 F.2d 928 (11th Cir. 1983)
-
Ophine Giles v. Ireland, 742 F.2d 1366 (11th Cir. 1984)
-
Chaline v. Kcoh, Inc., 693 F.2d 477 (5th Cir. 1982)
Authorities Cited
- Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (U.S. 1982)
- Robbins v. White-Wilson Med. Clinic, Inc., 660 F.2d 1064 (5th Cir. 1981)