Delores J. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE-WILSON MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Fifth Circuit

Delores J. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE-WILSON MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee

682 F.2d 503, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16659, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,989, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 824

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 1982

Docket80-5442

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 682 F.2d 503 (Delores J. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE-WILSON MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Delores J. ROBBINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHITE-WILSON MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 682 F.2d 503, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16659, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,989, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 824 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

682 F.2d 503, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16659, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,989, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delores-j-robbins-plaintiff-appellant-v-white-wilson-medical-clinic-ca5-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack