Crawford v. Northeastern Oklahoma State University, 82-1198
| Decision Date | 28 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1198,82-1198 |
| Citation | 713 F.2d 586 |
| Parties | 32 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 681, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,739 Dorothy CRAWFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHEASTERN OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Louis W. Bullock, Tulsa, Okl. (Carl G. Stevens, Tulsa, Okl., on briefs) of Sobel, Bullock & Stevens, Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff-appellant.
James B. Franks, Asst. Atty. Gen., Civ. Div., Oklahoma City, Okl. (Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen. of Okl., with him on brief), Oklahoma City, Okl., for defendants-appellees.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and BARRETT and McKAY, Circuit Judges.
Dorothy Crawford appeals from the district court's dismissal of her employment discrimination suit. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1976). Ms. Crawford claimed that the defendants, her former employers, had terminated her employment on the basis of her race and gender. At the close of Ms. Crawford's case, the trial court dismissed her suit for failure to establish a prima facie case.
The trial court, relying on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), held that Ms. Crawford could establish a prima facie case only by showing that (1) she was a member of a group protected by Title VII, (2) she was qualified for her job, (3) she was fired despite her qualifications, and (4) after she was fired, her job remained open and her employer sought applicants whose qualifications were no better than Ms. Crawford's qualifications. The court held that Ms. Crawford had presented no evidence pertaining to the fourth requirement.
The trial court referred to its dismissal as a directed verdict. Since this was a trial to the bench, there could be no directed verdict and we consider the dismissal to have been pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2523 (1971). The defendants argue that we may reverse a Rule 41(b) dismissal only if it was clearly erroneous. In granting a dismissal under Rule 41(b), the trial court may weigh the evidence, assess the witnesses' credibility, and make findings of fact. When a trial court does so, its findings of fact are reversible only if clearly erroneous. In the instant case, however, the trial court thought it was granting a directed verdict; the record does not indicate that it weighed the evidence. Ms. Crawford does not challenge any factual findings by the trial court; indeed, there were none. She argues that the trial court committed an error of law in applying the wrong standard to determine whether she had presented a prima facie case. Thus, the "clearly erroneous" standard of review is inapplicable.
In McDonnell Douglas, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit had established a prima facie case by satisfying the four requirements relied on by the trial court in the instant case. As this court has recently noted in interpreting McDonnell Douglas, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirk v. Board of Educ. of Bremen Community High School Dist., No. 228, Cook County, Ill.
...termination despite such satisfactory performance, and replacement by a member of a non-minority group. Crawford v. Northeastern Oklahoma State University, 713 F.2d 586 (10th Cir.1983); Junior v. Texaco, Inc., 688 F.2d 377 (5th Cir.1982). It is unclear how these standards translate to eithe......
-
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie
...Aurora, 69 F.3d 441, 451 n. 13 (10th Cir.1995); Lucas v. Dover Corp., 857 F.2d 1397, 1400–01 (10th Cir.1988); Crawford v. Ne. Okla. State Univ., 713 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir.1983). 3. It may also be the case in some situations that neither the employer nor the job applicant will know that th......
-
EEOC v. Wendy's of Colorado Springs, Inc.
...was hired in his place after he was fired. Brown, supra, 746 F.2d at 1409-10 (footnote omitted); Crawford v. Northeastern Oklahoma State Univ., 713 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1983); Mohammed v. Callaway, 698 F.2d 395, 398 (10th IV. As the Supreme Court held in Burdine, supra, 450 U.S. at 253,......
-
Perry v. Woodward, s. 97-2343
...was filled, instead of remaining open, did not preclude employee from establishing a prima facie case); Crawford v. Northeastern Okla. State Univ., 713 F.2d 586, 588 (10th Cir. 1983) Notwithstanding the large number of cases which articulate the prima facie test in wrongful-discharge cases,......