Case Name: Charles H. GRUBB, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. W.A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1985-04-16
Citations: 759 F.2d 546
Docket Number: Nos. 82-1879, 82-1888
Parties: Charles H. GRUBB, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. W.A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 759
Pages: 546–548

Head Matter:
Charles H. GRUBB, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. W.A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
Nos. 82-1879, 82-1888.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 24, 1984.
Decided April 16, 1985.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied June 7,1985.
Wellford, Circuit Judge, filed concurring statement.
Weick, Senior Circuit Judge, dissented and filed an opinion.
Edward M. Richters (argued), Day, Berry & Howard, Hartford, Conn., John H. Schomer, Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Good-now & Trigg, Jackson, Mich., for defendant-appellant, cross-appellee.
Joseph C. Marshall, III (argued), Dickerson, Wright, Moon, Robert P. Young, Detroit, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee, cross-appellant.
Before ENGEL and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges, and WEICK, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
ENGEL, Circuit Judge.
In Grubb v. W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital, Inc., 741 F.2d 1486 (6th Cir.1984), a majority of this panel, Judge Engel dissenting, directed the reversal of the judgment of the district court, 533 F.Supp. 671, insofar as it had found in favor of the plaintiff on his claim of racial discrimination and granted monetary and other relief therefrom. In all other respects the judgment was affirmed but the cause was directed to be remanded to the district court for the dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint. A timely motion for rehearing en banc was filed, and voting on the petition en banc was suspended when it appeared that the panel was reconsidering its original position.
Having now reconsidered its position in the light of the petition filed, a majority of the panel concludes that the issues with respect to Grubb's claim of racial discrimination are primarily factual and that the determinations made by the trial judge finding that plaintiff had been discharged because of racial discrimination are not clearly erroneous. In view of the completeness of the statement of facts, which is already published, a majority of the court believes that they are sufficient to support such a finding. A majority of the court also concludes that the trial judge did not. err in fashioning appropriate relief. Accordingly, the original judgment of this court is vacated and the petition for rehearing is granted. Upon reconsideration, the judgment of the district court is Affirmed.