Opinion ID: 788670
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury consideration of factual issues implicated in the constitutional test.

Text: 50 As noted above, we find unconvincing the Hospital's substantive arguments that the protected speech at issue — wearing the Union button and refusing to take it off — was not a motivating factor of its adverse employment action against Herrera. As for the procedural question whether the district court rather than the jury was the proper party to decide the two factual questions, we agree with Plaintiffs that it is without question that a district court may on a motion for summary judgment rule as a matter of law that the summary-judgment evidence demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial as to an element essential to the non-moving party's case. 61 Furthermore, according to the district court's analysis of the case, the Hospital had nowhere indicated that evidence [it] would have offered on these issues at trial would in any material way have differed from that which had already been considered and rejected. 62 Instead, the Hospital continued to insist that Herrera was not disciplined for his dress code violation. Although it is true that these factual questions would normally be for the jury to decide, the district court's actions here are not error in light of the summary judgment evidence on causation. 63