Opinion ID: 51139
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Employment Status

Text: The district court rejected Davis’s contention that he was an employee of EGL, holding instead that he was an independent 6 contractor. In so doing, the district court appears to have improperly weighed or made credibility determinations of some of the factual statements in Davis’s affidavit.3 See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255. Consequently, we have some doubts as to whether, given a proper consideration of Davis’s statements, the summary judgment can be affirmed on employment status grounds. The record shows, however, that EGL proffered several grounds for summary judgment to the district court. Therefore, we need not reach the issue of employment status, but instead may review the summary judgment on the additional grounds raised below but not addressed by the district court. See Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307, 1316 (5th Cir. 1997) (explaining that while summary judgment may be affirmed “on grounds not relied on by the district court, those grounds must at least have been proposed or asserted in that court by the movant”).