# Calvin Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · January 31, 1996 · 75 F.3d 989

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488885

## Case

- **Full name:** Calvin RHODES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GUIBERSON OIL TOOLS, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 31, 1996
- **Citations:** 75 F.3d 989; 1996 WL 37846
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Jones
- **Judges:** Politz, King, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Jones, Smith, Duhé, Wiener, Barksdale, Garza, Demoss, Benavides, Stewart, Parker, Dennis
- **Cited by:** 322 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488885

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[i]f the evidence put forth by the plaintiff to establish the prima facie case and to rebut the employer’s reason is not substantial, a jury cannot reasonably infer discriminatory intent ...and “[w]hen a plaintiff has offered pretextual evidence that allows a fac…
- holding that a plaintiff can avoid summary judgment only if she “(1) creates a fact issue as to whether each of the employer’s stated reasons was what actually motivated the employer and (2) creates a reasonable inference that age was a determinative factor in the actions of w…
- holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination when the plaintiff demonstrated that the employer's proffered explanation, poor performance, was pretextual because his poor results were due to the company's prices and a poor customer base
- holding that to avoid summary judgment in an ADEA action, an employee must present evidence that both: (1) rebuts the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason, and (2) creates an inference that age was a determinative factor in the challenged employment decision
- concluding that when *1179 plaintiff has established pretext, “we are convinced that ordinarily [a verdict for plaintiff] would be supported by sufficient evidence, but not always. The answer lies in our traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis.”

## Opinion text

EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting specially:
Like Judge DeMoss, I concur in the en banc majority’s articulation of the law applicable to this case.
Like Judge DeMoss, I do not agree that the rules of law were correctly applied to the facts before us, and I therefore concur in Part I of his dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488885. Public record. Not legal advice.