Opinion

Beatty v. Chesapeake Center, Inc.

  • 818 F.2d 318
  • 43 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1472
  • 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 37,274
  • 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 6092
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
May 8, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Haynsworth
On the bench
Hall, Haynsworth, Sprouse
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 19.6%

“The unique opportunity to observe the demean- or of witnesses requires that the trier of fact’s credibility determinations be accorded great deference.”

How later courts described this case

  • “The unique opportunity to observe the demean- or of witnesses requires that the trier of fact’s credibility determinations be accorded great deference.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HAYNSWORTH, Senior Circuit Judge,

dissenting:

Were we called upon to find the facts on the basis of this written record, I would agree the most logical inference is the one drawn by the majority. We are not the fact finder, however. The case was tried to the district court, and it was for the district court to determine which witness to believe and to draw any permissible inference warranted by the direct evidence. Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574-75 , 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1512-13 , 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

The inference drawn by the majority is not so compelled as to foreclose the district court’s finding that the act of the employer was the product of a misunderstanding rather than of a deliberate intention to discriminate against the pregnant plaintiff. That was Brown’s testimony, and the district court was free to accept it notwithstanding the fact that Brown might have been more helpful to the plaintiff by disclosing the details of the considerations entering into the employer’s decision and suggesting possible means of avoiding the problem.

This was a hiring situation, but the employer had demonstrated its flexibility and adaptability in meeting the needs of pregnant employees. That history suggests no predisposition to withdraw employment offers when the prospective employee becomes pregnant before her employment actually commences. See Holsey v. Armour & Co., 743 F.2d 199, 207 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1028 , 105 S.Ct. 1395 , 84 L.Ed.2d 784 (1985).

The majority opinion is an excellent argument for the plaintiff on the facts, but I would accept the finding of the district court as being not clearly erroneous.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.