explaining that a plaintiff must allege “facts, [either] direct or circumstantial, that would suggest [the employer’s] actions were based on [the plaintiff’s] race or national origin or that [the employer] treated similarly situated employees of other races or national origin more favorably”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that a plaintiff must allege “facts, [either] direct or circumstantial, that would suggest [the employer’s] actions were based on [the plaintiff’s] race or national origin or that [the employer] treated similarly situated employees of other races or national origin more favorably”
- holding that exclusion of the requested instruction did not impair party’s ability to present its claim because the jury instructions that were given were substantively correct and trial counsel was able to present the jury with the inferences they were permitted to make from the evidence
- explaining a plaintiff must allege "facts, [either] direct or circumstantial, that would suggest [the employer's] actions were based on [the plaintiff's] race or national origin or that [the employer] treated similarly situated employees of other races or national origin more favorably"
- finding that because the jury instructions properly stated the law and because the plaintiff was given the opportunity during closing statements to argue that the evidence showed pretext, the failure to give the requested pretext instruction was not reversible error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion in most respects. In particular, I agree that, under Ratliff v. City of Gainesville, 256 F.3d 355, 360-61 (5th Cir.2001), the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on permissive pretext. I also agree that, because that error was harmless on the facts of this case, we must affirm the judgment of the district court.
However, I do not join the majority opinion’s criticism of Ratliff or its call for en banc review of that decision. First, I am not convinced that Ratliff’s reasoning is incorrect. More importantly, because we have determined that the error in this case was harmless, the majority’s critique of Ratliff is unnecessary. For the same reason, this case is not a suitable vehicle for us to reconsider Ratliff en banc. I would not urge en banc review and the expenditure of time and resources that review would entail.