Roberts v. Gadsden Memorial Hosp., 86-3826
| Decision Date | 04 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-3826,86-3826 |
| Parties | 47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 811 Charles ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GADSDEN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant, Gadsden County, Florida, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Benjamin B. Culp, Jr., Fisher & Phillips, David Charles Whitlock, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.
Danni Vogt, Tallahassee, Fla., Steven L. Seliger, Quincy, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
(On Sua Sponte Reconsideration)
(Opinion Jan. 13, 1988, 11 Cir., 835 F.2d 793).
Before HILL and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and SPELLMAN *, District Judge.
The court sua sponte grants rehearing in this case and alters the majority opinion to the following extent:
1. The second paragraph, which reads
Upon careful review, we find that the District Court's conclusion that GMH wrongfully discriminated against Roberts in 1981 was supported by substantial evidence. The court's conclusion that the 1978 and 1981 incidents were so sufficiently related as to constitute a continuing violation, however, was clearly erroneous. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982); Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1129 (11th Cir.1984). Therefore, Roberts' 1978 claim was time-barred and he was not entitled to damages for injuries occurring prior to 1981. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.
is withdrawn. In its place, the following is inserted:
Upon careful review, we find that the District Court's conclusion that GMH wrongfully discriminated against Roberts in 1981 was supported by substantial evidence. The court erred, however, in holding that Roberts' claim based on the 1978 incident was not time-barred. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part.
2. The first paragraph of part II, which reads
Roberts' claim was essentially that GMH discriminated against him in denying him fair promotion opportunities in 1977, 1978, and 1981, and that these incidents demonstrate the existence of a continuing violation such that the earlier two claims were not time-barred, but rather, were preserved under the scope of the "continuing violation" doctrine. The District court found that racial discrimination was not involved in the 1977 incident. As Roberts did not appeal this finding, we need focus our discussion only upon the 1978 and 1981 incidents and whether these incidents, taken together, constituted a "continuing violation."
is withdrawn. In its place, the following is inserted:
Roberts' claim was essentially that GMH discriminated against him in denying him fair promotion opportunities in 1977, 1978, and 1981. The District Court found that racial discrimination was not involved in the 1977 incident. As Roberts did not appeal this finding, we need focus our discussion only upon the 1978 and 1981 incidents.
3. The last sentence of part II.B., which reads
Therefore, unless the 1978 incident and the 1981 incident were so sufficiently related as to constitute a continuing violation, Roberts' claim for relief stemming from the 1978 incident and the period prior to the 1981 incident were time-barred and the District court erred in granting relief for that period.
is withdrawn. In its place, the following is inserted:
Therefore, unless the 1978 incident constituted a continuing violation, Roberts' claim for relief stemming from the 1978 incident was time-barred and the District Court erred in granting relief on the basis of that claim. See Burnham v. Amoco Container Co., 755 F.2d 893 (11th Cir.1985).
Here, even if we assume that the 1978 discriminatory act continued into the statutory filing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazier v. First Union Nat. Bank
...to the filing of the charges with the EEOC. See Roberts v. Gadsden Memorial Hospital, 835 F.2d 793, 800 (11th Cir.), modified, 850 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir. 1988). Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant's motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' Title VII claims contained in causes of actio......
-
Demuren v. Old Dominion University
...Local No. 33, 921 F.2d 396. 401-02 (1st Cir.1990); Roberts v. Gadsden Mem'l Hosp., 835 F.2d 793, 800, amended on other grounds, 850 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir. 1988). 11. Defendants rely on the Berry test to argue that the continuing violation doctrine should not apply to plaintiffs' discriminator......
-
Blalock v. Dale County Bd. of Educ.
...the Eleventh Circuit reconsidered Roberts I sua sponte and withdrew Part C of Roberts I in its entirety. Roberts v. Gadsden Mem'l Hosp., 850 F.2d 1549, 1551 (11th Cir.1988). The court, thus, refrains from stating that the Eleventh Circuit has adopted the Berry analysis. 17. The court notes ......
-
Malone v. K-Mart Corp.
...(5th Cir.1983). Id. at 800. Roberts I was amended by the Eleventh Circuit on sua sponte reconsideration in Roberts v. Gadsden Mem'l Hosp., 850 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir.1988) ("Roberts II"), wherein the court withdrew Part C of Roberts I in its entirety. Id. at 1551. Accordingly, this court refra......