Opinion ID: 58820
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo the district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Musslewhite v. State Bar of Tex., 32 F.3d 942, 945 (5th Cir. 1994). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion “should be granted only if it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to relief.” Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). We also review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment.2 Tex. Indus. v. Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 486 F.3d 844, 846 (5th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). In a Title VII case, the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). If the plaintiff does so, a presumption of discrimination arises and the burden shifts to the employer to produce a 2 Smith argues that the trial court erred in granting the Secretary’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and urges this court to accept as true all of the allegations in the complaint. However, the trial court actually denied the Secretary’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and later granted the Secretary’s motion for summary judgment on those claims. Therefore, we apply the summary judgment standard on appeal. 4 No. 07-30395 legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the alleged adverse employment action. Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212, 219 (5th Cir. 2001). If the employer produces such a reason, the plaintiff must offer evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact either that (1) the defendant’s proffered reason is not true, or (2) the defendant’s reason, while true, is only one of the reasons for its conduct, and another motivating factor is the plaintiff’s protected characteristic. Rachid v. Jack In The Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2004).