AND · 42usc2000e-2:pretext
McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
Exact element source
because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national originSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [320:395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 3 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 3 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (3). Excluded context examples:Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa — 539 U.S. 90 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted Ricci v. DeStefano — 557 U.S. 557 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · not counted |
| _whole accepted; provisional (1 case) | The element is decided as a whole: the reasoning turns on no narrower doctrinal sub-question that distinguishes it from any other application of this element. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (1). Excluded context examples:Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted |
| falsity-of-reason provisional; 7 observed cases | Whether showing the stated reason false or disputed is enough to infer discrimination (Hicks, Reeves). | 4 Satisfied 2; not satisfied 2; excluded context 4 | 4 | Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. — 384 F. Supp. 3d 199 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. — 527 F.3d 358 (2008) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 — satisfied · triable (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Luceus v. Rhode Island — 923 F.3d 255 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — not · proved (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/alternative · not counted St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — not · proved (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/lower-court · not counted St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — not reached · basis not recorded (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · rule-announced/merits · not counted |
| honest-belief provisional; 2 observed cases | Whether the employer honestly held its reason, even if mistaken or reached after an imperfect inquiry. | 2 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 2; excluded context 1 | 1 | Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted Glenn v. Raymour — 832 F. Supp. 2d 539 (2011) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/alternative · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ginger v. District of Columbia — 477 F. Supp. 2d 41 (2007) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not reached (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: discrimination claim; subject: count=discrimination claim | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Glenn v. Raymour — 832 F. Supp. 2d 539 (2011) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1) Second ground, arguendo a prima facie case. A thin or one-sided investigation, without bias or coercion, does not show pretext; same-actor (hirer = firer within 8 months) noted as cutting against discrimination. | inadequate-investigation/more-witnesses-should-have-been-interviewed | To establish that Raymours’ reason for terminating Glenn was pretext, Glenn points to Raymours’ purported failure to conduct meaningful investigations in the Glenn-Faust incident, Adams-Copperthwaite incident, and Cynthia Stinson incident.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [34264:34503] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.Raymours supervisor, Rob Mirth, went out and discussed the situation with Glenn, and gave him an opportunity to provide his side of the story.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [35352:35494] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.Glenn is not making any such allegation here, but merely arguing that Raymours should have formally interviewed more witnesses and timely obtained witness statements.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [35778:35944] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.It should also be noted, as Raymours emphasizes, that the same person (Hazeldine) who terminated Glenn, hired him just eight months before, and that during that time, Hazeldine also provided Glenn with a favorable transfer and promotion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [42290:42527] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.Regardless, courts in the Third Circuit have found similar challenges to the adequacy of an investigation insufficient to establish pretext.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [36224:36364] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.The record, therefore, lacks sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Raymours’ legitimate, non-diseriminatory reason for terminating Glenn was pretext for racial discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [37229:37406] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f. |
| Henderson v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth. — 384 F. Supp. 3d 199 (2019) · United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1) Weaknesses in the stated reason (interviewing a candidate who left a minimum requirement blank) were held to suggest at most cronyism (references from the head of HR), which is not unlawful; dated promotion statistics and EEO-complaint counts did not show the decision-makers' intent. | bent-screening-rule-for-white-outside-hire-points-to-cronyism-not-race | He left the computer skills section of his application blank.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [5097:5158] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.For another question dealing with computer experience, though, the committee's notes reflect that Henderson had more computer experience than Melchionda (who described his computer skills as "minimal"), yet Henderson received three points lower.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [16654:16899] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.While Melchionda had worse computer skills, the undisputed evidence is that he had more experience supervising larger teams than Henderson and interviewed better.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [20779:20941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.Henderson also provides no evidence that the committee ever discussed or considered his race.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [21487:21580] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.An employer may properly rely on interview performance in making promotion decisions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [20942:21027] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.Even though the scoring of the answers appears subjective in some areas, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find racial discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [21096:21252] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405.Accordingly, the MBTA is entitled to summary judgment on Count I.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_384.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/384/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [23558:23623] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f2ca6c3947bf244a4721dd31600d039f6edeee5495b8fbf1162bb88bd7df3405. |
| Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — not · proved (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: proved; claim: (a) Court finds some stated reasons untrue or exaggerated (financial exigency told to EEOC; conduct allegations) yet no pretext FOR RACE -- the Hicks pattern before Hicks. Every captured fact supports falsity; the element fails on the second limb (racial motive), for which the facts sit under because-of. | falsity-alone/exaggerated-or-shifting-reasons-but-nonracial-animus | It is relevant, however, that on July 24, 1981, in response to the EEOC’s request for information, BSC stated that Turner was fired for financial exigency and discontinuance of major, and Goetzman was fired for financial exigency.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [13613:13843] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.Therefore, BSC was not financially exigent in the sense that its financial survival required the firings, although the school’s financial situation is difficult.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [14377:14538] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.Also, contrary to BSC’s claims, Goetzman was not responsible for the failure of the school newspaper, he did not refuse to serve in the communications lab or on the special recruitment committee, and he was never paid full-time wages for a part-time courseload.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [11288:11549] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.Plaintiff’s evidence must support with “substantial” or “reasonable probability,” as distinguished from “possibility” or “speculation,” plaintiff's contention that defendant’s explanation is pretextual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [18070:18272] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have failed to show that the reasons articulated for the firings were pretextual and that racial animus motivated the decision.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [29190:29348] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.And while there was animus between the school and the two professors, its roots were professional and philosophical.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [29546:29662] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8. |
| Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1),(c)(3),(m); 2000e(j); 2000e-3(a) | no-evidence-of-pretext/plaintiff-offered-none | a plaintiff is entitled to survive summary judgment, and judgment as a matter of law, if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to the truth of each of the employer’s proffered reasons for its challenged action.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [31044:31304] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.Breech never (1) came forth with evidence demonstrating that the adverse employment action was motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent or (2) attempted to show that APC’s proffered explanation was pretextual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [34288:34500] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf. |
| Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. — 527 F.3d 358 (2008) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 — satisfied · triable (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; claim: (a); 2000e(k) The employer's reason (no call, no approved leave) rests on a fact the plaintiff's witnesses contradict; the district court erred by weighing phone records against testimony at summary judgment. | disputed-factual-premise/leave-was-approved-by-decision-maker | Doe’s husband further testified that he talked to Kohl on Thursday, August 10th and got Kohl’s permission for his wife to take a vacation the following week.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [20485:20642] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.She further testified that, after that call, Kohl asked her to make sure she had the receptionist station covered by other employees during the lunch hour for the week in question (a task for which Doe was usually responsible).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [31368:31595] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.This statement contradicted Kohl’s statements to the EEOC wherein he testified to the EEOC investigator that employees “needed to call off every day.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [16119:16269] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.The conversation between Kohl and Babich, in which Kohl remarked that Doe had not taken responsibility for her abortion indicates that Kohl may have had other reasons for terminating Doe’s employment than her “abandonment” of her job.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [32278:32512] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.In order to show pretext, a plaintiff must submit evidence which (1) casts doubt upon the legitimate reason proffered by the employer such that a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that the reason was a fabrication; or (2) would allow the fact-finder to infer that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employee’s termination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [27758:28132] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.This testimony creates a genuine issue of material fact as to whether CARS’ proffered reasons for terminating Doe’s employment were a pretext.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [31965:32107] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb. |
| Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: failure to reinstate supervisory duties; subject: count=failure to reinstate supervisory duties The second fact is the plaintiff's own pretext evidence (subjective reinstatement criteria in the provost's email), held insufficient. | employer-may-disagree-with-outside-consultant-and-use-subjective-criteria | In Dr. Kent’s view, Dr. Asher’s recommendation was equivocal.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [38266:38327] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.She pointed to the October 2013 email from Associate Provost for Student Life Patricia Helton, which called on Dr. Hiatt to have “better awareness about the power she holds” and “demonstrate[ ] appropriate professional boundaries in all contexts” before she could resume supervision.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [40226:40509] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.“Evidence that the employer should not have made the [adverse employment] decision—for example, that the employer was mistaken or used poor business judgment—is not sufficient to show that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credibility.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [19839:20083] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt has not shown DU’s reasons for refusing to reinstate her supervisory duties were pretextual for retaliation or discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [40976:41112] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a); count: demotion; subject: count=demotion Even a mistaken ethics assessment is not pretext if reached honestly after hearing both sides and consulting outside experts; reasons given at the time match the litigation reasons. | consistent-contemporaneous-reasons-after-fair-investigation | When Dr. Kent and Dr. Palmateer met with Dr. Hiatt on February 22, 2013, and presented the three options to her, the reasons they stated then are the same reasons that DU provides in this litigation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [28380:28579] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Kent presented both Dr. Hiatt’s and Dr. Fogle’s timelines of events to Dr. Philinda Hutchings—the Dean of the Midwestern School of Professional Psychology—and Dr. Bill Bracker—the former Director of the Nova Southeastern University Consortium Internship.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [32876:33134] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Consistent with Smothers, DU gave Dr. Hiatt multiple opportunities to explain her version of events.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [33947:34047] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Indeed, Dr. Hiatt admitted in her deposition that supervisees even had a name for it—getting “Tawny-ed.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [35306:35410] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.“The relevant inquiry is not whether the employer’s proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [20165:20354] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.Dr. Hiatt has not shown that DU’s reasons for removing her from her position as Training Director and demoting her to Outreach Coordinator were dishonest or made in bad faith, Swackhammer, 498 F.3d at 1169-70, or were “so incoherent, weak, inconsistent, or contradictory that a rational factfinder could conclude they are unworthy of belief,” Johnson, 594 F.3d at 1211 (brackets and quotations omitted).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [35699:36102] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f. |
| Spencer v. VIRGINIA STATE UNIVERSITY — 919 F.3d 199 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / alternative basis: no-evidence; claim: (a) | claimed-misapplication-of-salary-policy-without-evidence-of-sex-based-use | But again, even if the University "erroneously or even purposely misapplied the ... policy, it is not proof of unlawful discrimination."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [18648:18784] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Instead, Spencer merely argues that the University misapplied the 9/12ths policy to Shackleford and Dial.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [18542:18647] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.And there is another flaw, though immaterial given the report's other shortcomings: Rosenberg's expert report does not account for Spencer's comparators' prior work in the administration, even though everyone appears to agree that their prior administrative experience determined their salaries.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [22335:22630] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c.Spencer cannot supply any evidence of this.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_919.jsonl#/f3d/919/0199-01; Unicode character offsets [18259:18302] (end exclusive); SHA-256 74e2ea300edf9e56045848c314f121d888bb4136961d68cc526a9841e8ad680c. |
| Luceus v. Rhode Island — 923 F.3d 255 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2019 — not · no-evidence (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a), (k) | admitted-misconduct-no-comparator-only-general-statistics | For that reason, " 'statistical evidence of a company's general hiring patterns, although relevant, carries less probative weight' " in a disparate treatment claim, "and 'in and of itself[ ] rarely suffices to rebut an employer's legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for its decision.' "Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0255-01; Unicode character offsets [9024:9314] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9b47ea07fd6337340e8a119cd67028f3678010fb54040f2f276021b253028d69.She does not dispute most of the Department's allegations of disruptive conduct and, indeed, explicitly acknowledges the truth of several of them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0255-01; Unicode character offsets [7938:8084] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9b47ea07fd6337340e8a119cd67028f3678010fb54040f2f276021b253028d69.She also fails to identify other, white employees "similarly situated" to her "in all relevant respects" who were "treated differently by the employer," as might permit a jury to find that the employer's reason was pretextual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0255-01; Unicode character offsets [8148:8374] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9b47ea07fd6337340e8a119cd67028f3678010fb54040f2f276021b253028d69.The primary evidence Luceus offers to counter the defendants' stated justification is the data she offers to support her disparate impact claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0255-01; Unicode character offsets [8651:8795] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9b47ea07fd6337340e8a119cd67028f3678010fb54040f2f276021b253028d69.Luceus does not offer enough evidence to rebut that legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_923.jsonl#/f3d/923/0255-01; Unicode character offsets [7841:7937] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9b47ea07fd6337340e8a119cd67028f3678010fb54040f2f276021b253028d69. |
| Mayorga v. Merdon — 928 F.3d 84 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · triable (42usc2000e-2: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: triable; claim: (a) | selecting-official-understated-applicant-experience-and-attributed-statements-he-denies | Mayorga may, therefore, rebut the AOC's claim that Williams and Coulter were more qualified by proffering evidence that the selecting officials knowingly understated Mayorga's qualifications, making their decision pretextual.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [13211:13436] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b.Bieber claims only his "shop" (presumably the EMCS Branch) works on the "actual BAS net network" - yet Bieber said he hired Coulter for his network qualifications and Coulter, like Mayorga, did not work in Bieber's shop.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [17038:17258] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b.More important, Wallace, "the BAS Net Manager" of the EMCS, has represented that Mayorga is "an operator" on "the BAS Net system," casting further doubt upon Bieber's statement that Mayorga lacks BASnet experience:Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [17704:17918] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b.These accounts are in some tension with Mayorga's resume, which states his objective was to "achieve meaningful employment with the Office of Planning and Project Management as an Electronic[s] Technician," the job title listed in the vacancy announcement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [20327:20583] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b.Although Mayorga did not provide much detail about how he helped the EMCS team troubleshoot problems arising from the BASnet, we think a jury could nonetheless credit Mayorga's testimony that he worked with Bieber's team and infer Bieber knew Mayorga had the requisite BASnet experience.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [19124:19411] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b.A jury may reasonably find that Bieber and Wallace fabricated Mayorga's alleged statements in order to bolster their pretextual explanation that Mayorga was not as qualified as the other applicants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [21410:21608] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b.Viewed in this light, a reasonable jury could be "quite suspicious" about the sincerity of the reasons given for Mayorga's not having been selected.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_928.jsonl#/f3d/928/0084-01; Unicode character offsets [29014:29162] (end exclusive); SHA-256 73316afd8aed8c6e7189982c076c75d00eba558f236e5a018c04b7d74b87504b. |
| St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — not · proved (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: plaintiff Melvin Hicks, shift commander (respondent); subject: party=plaintiff Melvin Hicks, shift commander (respondent) District Court as trier of fact (bench trial): falsity of the stated reasons was PROVED (selective discipline, manufactured confrontation), but it found personal animosity, not race. The Supreme Court reports the finding and leaves its review to CA8 on remand. | falsity-alone/reason-disbelieved-but-no-finding-of-discriminatory-motive | The District Court, acting as trier of fact in this bench trial, found that the reasons petitioners gave were not the real reasons for respondent’s demotion and discharge.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [6786:6957] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.It found that respondent was the only supervisor disciplined for violations committed by his subordinates; that similar and even more serious violations committed by respondent’s co-workers were either disregarded or treated more leniently; and that Powell manufactured the final verbal confrontation in order to provoke respondent into threatening him.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [6958:7311] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.In short, the District Court concluded that “although [respondent] has proven the existence of a crusade to terminate him, he has not proven that the crusade was racially rather than personally motivated.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [7534:7739] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3. |
| St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — not reached (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1) The Court decides only what disbelief of the employer's reasons legally entails: "pretext" means pretext FOR DISCRIMINATION, and disbelief permits, never compels, that inference. It reverses CA8's judgment-as-a-matter-of-law rule and remands for ordinary clearly-erroneous review of the trial court's finding; it does not itself decide whether pretext was shown. | falsity-alone/reason-disbelieved-but-no-finding-of-discriminatory-motive | But a reason cannot be proved to be “a pretext for discrimination” unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [19772:19934] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination, and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted that, upon such rejection, “[n]o additional proof of discrimination is required,”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [11272:11545] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.It is not enough, in other words, to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [27222:27370] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.But the Court of Appeals’ holding that rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons compels judgment for the plaintiff disregards the fundamental principle of Rule 301 that a presumption does not shift the burden of proof, and ignores our repeated admonition that the Title VII plaintiff at all times bears the “ultimate burden of persuasion.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [11582:11927] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3. |
| Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa — 539 U.S. 90 (2003) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — not reached (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1),(m) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Ricci v. DeStefano — 557 U.S. 557 (2009) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — not reached (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Pretext for discrimination (McDonnell Douglas step 3) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1),(k),(l),(h),(j) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
But a reason cannot be proved to be “a pretext for discrimination” unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason.
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
But a reason cannot be proved to be “a pretext for discrimination” unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [19772:19934] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination, and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted that, upon such rejection, “[n]o additional proof of discrimination is required,”
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Thus, rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination, and the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted that, upon such rejection, “[n]o additional proof of discrimination is required,”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [11272:11545] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
It is not enough, in other words, to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination.
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks — 509 U.S. 502 (1993) · Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
It is not enough, in other words, to disbelieve the employer; the factfinder must believe the plaintiff’s explanation of intentional discrimination.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [27222:27370] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
In order to show pretext, a plaintiff must submit evidence which (1) casts doubt upon the legitimate reason proffered by the employer such that a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that the reason was a fabrication; or (2) would allow the fact-finder to infer that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employee’s termination.
Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. — 527 F.3d 358 (2008) · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
In order to show pretext, a plaintiff must submit evidence which (1) casts doubt upon the legitimate reason proffered by the employer such that a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that the reason was a fabrication; or (2) would allow the fact-finder to infer that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employee’s termination.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [27758:28132] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
“The relevant inquiry is not whether the employer’s proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.”
Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
“The relevant inquiry is not whether the employer’s proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [20165:20354] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
“Evidence that the employer should not have made the [adverse employment] decision—for example, that the employer was mistaken or used poor business judgment—is not sufficient to show that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credibility.”
Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary — 858 F.3d 1307 (2017) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
“Evidence that the employer should not have made the [adverse employment] decision—for example, that the employer was mistaken or used poor business judgment—is not sufficient to show that the employer’s explanation is unworthy of credibility.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [19839:20083] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
Regardless, courts in the Third Circuit have found similar challenges to the adequacy of an investigation insufficient to establish pretext.
Glenn v. Raymour — 832 F. Supp. 2d 539 (2011) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Regardless, courts in the Third Circuit have found similar challenges to the adequacy of an investigation insufficient to establish pretext.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [36224:36364] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
Plaintiff’s evidence must support with “substantial” or “reasonable probability,” as distinguished from “possibility” or “speculation,” plaintiff's contention that defendant’s explanation is pretextual.
Turner v. Barber-Scotia College — 604 F. Supp. 1450 (1985) · United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Plaintiff’s evidence must support with “substantial” or “reasonable probability,” as distinguished from “possibility” or “speculation,” plaintiff's contention that defendant’s explanation is pretextual.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [18070:18272] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
interpretation
a plaintiff is entitled to survive summary judgment, and judgment as a matter of law, if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to the truth of each of the employer’s proffered reasons for its challenged action.
Breech v. Alabama Power Co. — 962 F. Supp. 1447 (1997) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 (42usc2000e-2: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
a plaintiff is entitled to survive summary judgment, and judgment as a matter of law, if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to the truth of each of the employer’s proffered reasons for its challenged action.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [31044:31304] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.
not-required
Showing merely that the employer was mistaken, conducted an imperfect investigation, or exercised poor business judgment if the employer honestly believed its proffered reason (Hiatt v. Colorado Seminary; Glenn v. Raymour)
No source quotation recorded.