Case Name: Mahmoud RASHAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-09
Citations: 272 F. App'x 880
Docket Number: No. 07-11989
Parties: Mahmoud RASHAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 880–881

Head Matter:
Mahmoud RASHAD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-11989.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
April 9, 2008.
John Derek Wales, Law Offices of John D. Wales, Marietta, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Audrey Leigh Baggett, R. David Ware, Office the Fulton County Attorney, Atlanta, GA, Paula Morgan Nash, Fulton County Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before BARKETT and FAY, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON, District Judge.
Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mahmoud Rashad appeals an adverse summary judgment in favor of his employer, Fulton County, on his claims of religious discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), 3(a).
Upon review of the record, and upon consideration of the briefs and oral argu ment of the parties, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Fulton County on Rash-ad's religious discrimination claim. However, we reverse as to his retaliation claim. The district court found that Rashad had established facts sufficient to support his prima facie case of retaliation; however, the court found that Rashad could not point to sufficient evidence rebutting Fulton County's proffered reason for terminating him. We find evidence in the record from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Fulton County's proffered reason for terminating Rashad — insubordination — was merely pretextual. Thus, summary judgment on the retaliation claim was erroneous.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.