and unanimous negative performance reviews from the moment that she began working as a medical resident. The court noted “[e]very doctor to evaluate [the plaintiff] found that her performance as a surgeon was insufficient to allow her to continue in the program. No evidence of bias was alleged regarding most of these doctors, leaving a chorus of negative evaluations unrebutted by a single positive testimonial.” Id. at 318. That is not the case here. While Mr. Ohlmeyer’s performance evaluations were largely negative, he did earn some praise from his supervisors. In addition, |49we note that the U.S. Fifth Circuit has reaffirmed the viability of the Bienkowski rule since Sreeram. See, e.g., Berquist v. Washington Mut. Bank, 500 F.3d 344, 351 (5th Cir.2007), cert. denied Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we find that Mr. Ohl-meyer was
holding that in determining the propriety of summary judgment credibility determinations may not be made  holding that credibility determinations should not be resolved at the summary judgment stage holding that credibility determinations are for the jury holding that it is not appropriate for the district court to determine whether subjective criteria are bona fide in effect making dispositive determinations about the employers credibility on summary judgment holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if the resolution of material issues depends upon credibility determinations