42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

A Title VII race or sex discrimination claim fails when the employee does not establish a prima facie case.

Morton v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services · filed 1995-05-18

We affirm the district court's determination that Morton failed to prove a prima facie case of race, age, or sex discrimination.

A prima facie discrimination case depends on whether the unrebutted facts would lead an ordinary person to infer discrimination.

Myra J. WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONSBANK OF FLORIDA N.A., a Florida Corporation, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1995-06-12(a)(1)

Whether a prima facie case has been established is a fact specific inquiry: Would an ordinary person reasonably infer discrimination if the facts presented remained unrebutted?

Section 2000e-2(a) allows the elements of a prima facie discrimination case to be adapted to the circumstances alleged.

McDonnell v. Certified Engineering & Testing Co. · filed 1995-07-31(a)

Because circumstances giving rise to complaints of employment discrimination vary widely, the elements of a prima facie case are elastic enough to be formulated to best fit the circumstances alleged.

In a reduction in force case, a Title VII sex discrimination plaintiff can establish the fourth element of a prima facie case by showing that men remained in similar positions after her discharge.

Meinecke v. H & R Block Income · filed 1995-10-05(a)(1)

Because this is a "reduction in force" case, Meinecke must prove as the fourth elements of her prima facie cases of sex and age discrimination that males remained in similar positions and that she was otherwise discharged because of her age.

A plaintiff alleging sex discrimination under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) need make only a de minimis showing of the elements of a prima facie case to defeat summary judgment.

Sigmon v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl · filed 1995-10-06(a)(1)

In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the showing the plaintiff must make as to the elements of a prima facie case is “de minimis.”

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing protected status, qualification, an adverse employment action, and replacement by someone outside the protected class.

Persinger v. Ohio Department of Natural Resources · filed 1995-11-15(a)(1)

Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a)(1) (1988), an individual may establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that: 1) she is in the protected class; 2) she was qualified for the work; 3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and 4) she was replaced by a person not in the protected class.

In a reduction in force case, a Title VII sex discrimination plaintiff must show that men remained in similar positions; an employee of another company who assumes some duties does not satisfy that requirement.

Meinecke v. H & R Block of Houston, a General Partnership, and Administaff, Inc. · filed 1995-11-09(a)(1)

While Treat may have assumed many of the duties that Meinecke had performed before she left H & R Block, he did so as an employee of another company, HRB/ STI, which had agreed to provide managerial consulting services pursuant to a management agreement. ... Under these facts, Meinecke cannot show that males remained in similar positions after she was discharged.

Section 2000e-2 requires a plaintiff claiming discriminatory rejection to make a prima facie case by alleging that she applied and was qualified for a particular job and that the employer continued to seek applicants with her qualifications after rejecting her.

Ingram v. Morgan State University · filed 1996-01-16

Her Title VII and 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1981 (West 1994) claims fail to meet this standard because Appellant has not alleged that she applied and was qualified for a particular job or that the Defendants continued to seek applicants of her qualifications after her rejection.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging race discrimination to establish a prima facie case by showing protected-class membership, job qualifications, an employment decision, and that the position went to an applicant outside the protected class with equal or inferior qualifications.

Davis v. Sacramento County District Attorney's Office · filed 1996-01-25(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show (1) membership in a protected class, (2) that he or she was qualified for the job, (3) an employment decision, and (4) that the position was given to a non-protected class applicant with equal or inferior qualifications.

A plaintiff alleging a discriminatory reduction in force must show that employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably to establish a prima facie case under Title VII.

Thomas v. Allied Signal, Inc. Garrett Fluid Systems, Inc. · filed 1996-02-20

"[I]n a case in which it is alleged that a [reduction-in-force] was carried out in a discriminatory fashion, the plaintiff may establish her prima facie case by demonstrating: (1) that she belongs to a protected class; (2) that she was discharged from a job for which she was qualified; and (3) that others not in her protected class were treated more favorably." ... Here, Thomas failed to submit evidence to support the third prong of a prima facie case.

A plaintiff alleging race-based discharge under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must make a prima facie showing that her position remained open and was eventually filled by a white person.

Dooley v. Henry Ford Hospital · filed 1996-02-28(a)(1)

There is no evidence before the court concerning whether plaintiffs position remained open and whether she was replaced with a white person. Thus, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination.

A race or sex discrimination claim fails when the employee lacks the qualifications for the job and offers no evidence that similarly situated employees were treated differently.

Mays v. United States Postal Service · filed 1996-04-08(a)(1)

Consistent with the foregoing, the court finds that Ms. Mays has failed to proffer any evidence that she was treated differently than other similarly situated employees. Hence, the court finds that Ms. Mays has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination.

An applicant who lacks the qualifications for a position cannot establish a prima facie case of discriminatory rejection under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Philippeaux v. County of Nassau · filed 1996-04-10(a)(1)

Accordingly, plaintiffs failure to possess the qualifications requisite for this position warrants the dismissal of this claim for failure to establish a prima facie case.

A pregnancy discrimination claim requires evidence of an adverse employment decision and more favorable treatment of non-pregnant employees or different application of workplace rules.

Mayberry v. Endocrinology-Diabetes Associates · filed 1996-05-31(a)

Plaintiff must show: (1) that she is a member of a protected class or minority; (2) that she was qualified for the position held; (3) that despite her qualifications, she was subjected to an adverse employment decision; and (4) that non-pregnant employees were treated more favorably than she or that she suffered from differential application of work or disciplinary rules.

An applicant alleging discriminatory failure to hire must show that she was qualified for an available position to establish a prima facie case.

Patricia A. McColm Cross-Appellee v. California State University Trustees · filed 1996-07-05(a)(1)

McColm fails to identify any record evidence supporting the fact that there was an open tenure track position related to the performance area. The district court did not err in finding that McColm failed to show a prima facie case of discrimination regarding the tenure track decisions.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging discriminatory termination to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Evans v. State of Conn. · filed 1996-07-11(a)(1)

Here, plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination based on race.

A plaintiff can establish satisfactory job performance for a prima facie pregnancy discrimination claim through retained objective qualifications and her own testimony that her performance was adequate.

Gudenkauf v. Stauffer Communications, Inc. · filed 1996-08-30(a)(1)

Gudenkauf proved this element of her prima facie ease not only by the fact that at the time of discharge she possessed the same skills and objective qualifications possessed at the time of hiring but also by her own testimony that her performance had been adequate.

A Title VII plaintiff alleging discriminatory demotion or denial of promotion must present evidence that employees of a different race received more favorable treatment under similar circumstances.

Skinner v. Brown · filed 1996-10-31(a)

Accepting all of Plaintiffs evidence as true for the purposes of the Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion, Plaintiff has failed to establish the fourth prong of her prima facie ease as to both her demotion and promotion claims, because she has failed to present any competent summary judgment evidence that others who were substantially younger or of a different race received more favorable treatment under similar circumstances.

After an employer has presented its legitimate business explanations at trial, whether the employee established a prima facie discrimination case is no longer relevant.

Gueye v. Air Afrique · filed 1996-10-31(a)

Because the district court extensively analyzed trial testimony relevant to Air Afrique's proffered legitimate business explanations for its actions, it is clear that the court at least implicitly concluded that Gueye had established a prima facie case. Further "[w]here the defendant has done everything that would be required of him if the plaintiff had properly made out a prima facie case, whether the plaintiff really did so is no longer relevant." United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715 (1983).

A plaintiff relying on indirect evidence of race discrimination must show that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably.

Smith v. Pick 'N Save and John Fix · filed 1996-11-25(a)(1)

We agree with the district court that Smith failed to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to proving his prima facie case of discrimination. He has provided no evidence that he has been treated differently than those who were similarly situated.

A plaintiff must offer evidence supporting a prima facie case of sex or race discrimination to survive summary judgment under Title VII.

Hall v. Daka International, Inc. · filed 1996-12-18(a)(1)

Here, Hall has not met her burden in opposing Daka’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of age, gender, and reverse race discrimination under Title VII. Consequently, Plaintiffs Title VII claim must be dismissed in its entirety.

Section 2000e-2 requires a plaintiff challenging a termination as race discrimination to present evidence supporting an inference that the termination was race-related.

Moller v. State Personnel Board · filed 1996-12-31

The record reveals that Moller failed to present the minimal evidence necessary, either direct or circumstantial, to make out such a prima facie case. Moller presented evidence that one of her trainers, who is African-American, made a rude remark, but there is no evidence that the remark in any way referred or alluded to Moller's race. Plaintiff presented evidence of a race-related remark by a co-worker, but provided no evidence that the remark was related in any way to the adverse employment action.

Under Section 2000e-2(a)(1), the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie discrimination claim because they offered no evidence that anyone replaced them, much less someone outside their protected groups.

Belian v. Texas a & M University Corpus Christi · filed 1997-01-07(a)(1)

Here, the Court FINDS and Plaintiffs admit that Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that the Plaintiffs were replace by anyone, much less a person who is not a member of the Plaintiffs’ protected groups. ... Therefore, the Court CONCLUDES after viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs have not established a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA nor under Title VII.

In a reduction in force, a Title VII sex-discrimination plaintiff must offer evidence that sex was a factor in the termination and that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual.

Walther v. Everest & Jennings, Inc. · filed 1997-03-21

Having carefully analyzed each piece of evidence upon which plaintiff relies, the Court concludes as a matter of law that plaintiff has failed to make the additional showing of age or sex discrimination required to satisfy the requirements of the prima facie case in the RIF context, failed to create a genuine dispute of fact concerning pretext in her selection for termination, and faded to demonstrate an ability to adduce sufficient evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to infer discrimination. For all the foregoing reasons, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs claims of age discrimination under the ADEA and sex discrimination under Title VII.

When it is disputed whether an applicant was hired and then discharged or was never hired, a Title VII discrimination claim requires analysis under both prima facie tests.

Chacko v. Texas a & M University · filed 1997-04-04(a)(1)

Because, in the case at bar, there is a dispute as to whether Chacko was improperly discharged or was not hired, an analysis under both tests is necessary.

A plaintiff using indirect proof of sex discrimination must show that the employer treated a similarly situated employee of another sex more favorably.

Greenslade v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., and Chicago Newspaper Guild, Local 71 · filed 1997-05-29(a)(1)

It is unnecessary to decide whether Greenslade suffered an adverse employment action satisfying the third element of a prima facie case, however, because the record shows no evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the fourth element was met — that the Sun-Times treated a similarly-situated female employee more favorably than Greenslade.

Under Title VII, a plaintiff retains the burden of proving intentional discrimination after the employer offers a nondiscriminatory reason; a prima facie case and evidence of pretext may or may not satisfy that burden.

Cynthia J. Fisher, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Vassar College, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee · filed 1997-06-05(a)(1)

We hold that once an employer has proffered a nondiscriminatory reason for an adverse employment action, a plaintiff in a discrimination case must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason for the adverse employment action was illegal discrimination. In so doing, a plaintiff may rely on the evidence constituting the prima facie case, together with supportable inferences to be drawn from the false or erroneous character of the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse action. Because of the special meaning given by the Supreme Court to prima facie proof in this area of law, evidence constituting a prima facie case prior to the employer’s proffer of a reason, coupled with the error or falsity of the employer’s proffered reason may — or may not — be sufficient to show illegal discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence.

A temporary employee cannot establish a prima facie case of race or national origin discrimination through a failure to extend the position when the employee cannot show that the position remained open or that the extension was denied despite the employee’s qualifications.

Kenneth B. Quansah, Jr. v. International Business MacHines Corporation, Defendant-Appelle · filed 1997-06-09(a)(1)

Because the position was temporary, Quansah cannot show that he was not extended despite his qualifications, or that the position remained open. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Accordingly, Quansah failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination based upon race or national origin. See id.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an applicant alleging discriminatory hiring to show that the employer knew he was qualified when it made its decision; qualifications disclosed later do not count.

Teehee v. Board of Educ. · filed 1997-06-10(a)(1)

The relevant question is whether the employer refused to hire an applicant whom the employer knew to be qualified. Therefore, only the information presented to the employer before the hiring decision is relevant.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee claiming workplace religious discrimination to show that a bona fide religious belief conflicted with an employment policy, that the employee informed the employer of the conflict, and that the employee was penalized because of it.

Kolodziej v. Smith · filed 1997-07-21(a)(1)

In order to establish a prima facie case of workplace religious discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must prove that (1) a bona fide religious belief of the employee conflicted with an employment policy; (2) the employee informed the employer of the conflict; and (3) the employee was penalized in some way because of the conflict.

A discharged employee can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination by showing that similarly situated employees outside the protected class committed the same offense but were not terminated.

Moore v. State of Ala. · filed 1997-08-25(a)(1)

Therefore, if these plaintiffs have produced any evidence that similarly situated CCWC employees, not within plaintiffs’ protected class, committed the same offense plaintiffs committed but were not terminated, Moore and Kelly will have established their prima facie case. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that Kelly and Moore have failed to establish a prima facie ease of intentional discrimination and, consequently, the ADOC defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Kelly and Moore’s Title VII claims is due to be granted.

For a race discrimination claim based on denial of a position, a plaintiff must show that an available position existed for which she was qualified.

Briscoe v. Us West Communications Inc. · filed 1997-09-15

Because there was no available position for which she was qualified, Briscoe did not provide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VII or Oregon law.

A plaintiff claiming discriminatory discharge under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must show satisfactory job performance as part of the prima facie case.

Huff v. The Boeing Company Clarke Abram Dan Habel · filed 1997-10-23(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge under Title VII and the ADEA, a plaintiff must show, inter alia, that she was performing her job in a satisfactory manner.

A prima facie claim of race discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires protected status, qualification for the position, adverse employment action, and circumstances suggesting discriminatory motivation.

Moss v. Advance Circuits, Inc. · filed 1997-11-20(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s prima facie case requires proof of four elements: (1) plaintiff is a member of a protected class; (2) plaintiff is qualified for her position; (3) adverse employment action was taken against plaintiff; and (4) such action occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory motivation.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a racial discrimination plaintiff to show that an employment benefit denied to him was given to someone outside his protected class.

Williams v. Maynard Steel Casting Co. · filed 1997-12-10(a)(1)

In order to prove his prima facie case of Title VII racial discrimination, Mr. Williams had to show (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for the job or employment benefit which he was denied; (3) that adverse employment action was taken against him; and (4) the job or employment benefit was given to individuals not in the protected class.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not require a rejected applicant to show that the employer hired someone outside the applicant’s protected class to establish a race discrimination claim.

Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co. · filed 1997-12-19(a)(1)

However, in three out of four of those eases, the positions were filled by African-Americans. Contrary to defendant s assertions (Def.Mot., Doe. No. 37 at 9), this last element is not dispositive of the racial discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge to show intentional discrimination; unsatisfactory job performance defeats an inference of discriminatory intent under McDonnell Douglas.

Karpel v. INOVA Health System · filed 1998-01-27(a)

Because the record clearly demonstrates that Karpel's job perfor- mance was unsatisfactory, we are also unable to infer discriminatory intent under the McDonnell Douglas scheme.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a woman alleging discriminatory discharge may establish a prima facie case by showing that a man replaced her or that she would not have been fired had she been a man.

Carter v. Rubin · filed 1998-01-28(a)(1)

Carter may meet the requirements for a prima facie case of discrimination with respect to her termination by showing that either after her termination, she was replaced by a male or that had she been male, her employer would not have fired her. Carter must make some showing that the employer treated her and male employees in a disparate manner.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a failure-to-hire plaintiff to establish the qualification element of a prima facie discrimination case with credible evidence of objective qualifications, even if the employer disputes that evidence.

Hernandez v. City of Ottawa, Kansas · filed 1998-01-30(a)(1)

Thus, in a failure to hire lawsuit, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of discrimination merely by advancing credible evidence that he possessed the objective qualifications for the desired position even if the evidence is disputed by the defendant.

A plaintiff alleging sex discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must establish a prima facie case when she has no direct evidence of discrimination.

Stein v. Kent State University Board of Trustees · filed 1998-02-18(a)(1)

The Court finds Plaintiff Stein has not made out a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

A plaintiff alleging sex discrimination under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) can establish a prima facie case by showing protected-class membership, job qualifications, termination, and replacement by someone outside the protected class.

Sherman v. American Cyanamid Co. · filed 1998-02-26(a)(1)

A plaintiff can do this by showing (1) the plaintiff is a member of a class protected by Title VII; (2) the plaintiff was qualified for a job; (3) the plaintiff was terminated, despite her qualifications; and (4) after this termination, the employer filled the position with a nonmember of the protected class.

A Title VII applicant who does not meet an employer’s objective qualifications cannot establish a prima facie discrimination case without evidence that the standards are unreasonable or inconsistently applied.

Ewing v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · filed 1998-04-24(a)

In the absence of summary judgment evidence that an employer’s qualifications are unreasonable or inconsistently applied, an employer’s qualification standards will not be second-guessed by a trier of fact. ... Once Agency 2000 took effect, Plaintiff simply was not qualified to be a State Farm agent absent three years of employment with State Farm.

A plaintiff alleging race discrimination in a reduction-in-force discharge must show comparable performance to retained employees and that the remaining workforce included employees outside the protected group who performed at a lower level.

Reddy v. BDM Federal Inc · filed 1998-05-15

Because Reddy has not shown that any non-protected employees performing at or below his level were retained, he has not stated a prima facie case.

A sex discrimination claim under this section cannot survive summary judgment when the employee offers no direct evidence of discrimination and fails to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas.

Prestianni v. United Parcel Svc · filed 1998-05-27

The district court granted the motion, reasoning that Prestianni had prof- fered no direct evidence of sex discrimination or made out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). ... After reviewing the parties' briefs and the applicable law, we con- clude that the district court properly granted summary judgment and affirm on the reasoning set forth in that court's careful opinion.

A Title VII plaintiff relying on the McDonnell Douglas framework must show satisfactory job performance to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

Brown v. Stafford Cnty Public · filed 1998-06-10

Brown's allegations of less than cordial interactions with her supervisors do not alter the fact that the evidence of record is uncontroverted on one material issue: Brown was not performing her legitimate job expectations in a satisfactory manner. As a result, Brown failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie Title VII discrimination case by showing more favorable treatment of employees outside the protected class, even if someone in the protected class replaced the plaintiff.

Quintanilla v. K-Bin, Inc. · filed 1998-06-23(a)

K-Bin argues that Plaintiff cannot establish the fourth element as a matter of law, because he was replaced by a Hispanic male. However, Plaintiff may still state a prima facie case by showing that non-Hispanics were treated more favorably.

A plaintiff claiming discriminatory discharge must show satisfactory job performance to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination.

Hadrosek v. Paging Network Inc · filed 1998-06-26(a)

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hadrosek, her claim does not pass the second prong of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie requirements--she has not shown that she performed her job to the satisfaction of her employer.

A plaintiff who cannot show satisfactory job performance fails to establish a prima facie Title VII sex discrimination claim.

Carroll v. Town of Univ Park · filed 1998-06-29

Carroll fails to make out a prima facie case of sex discrimination because she fails to show that she was performing sat- isfactorily.

A discriminatory-discharge plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by showing that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Blackshear v. City of Wilmington · filed 1998-07-31(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Court concludes that Paolino, a white code enforcement officer, was a similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably than Blaekshear. ... The Court therefore finds that Blaekshear satisfied all the elements of his prima facie case.

A plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie race discrimination claim based on replacement when the employer replaced her with employees of the same race.

Caro v. City of Dallas · filed 1998-08-20(a)(1)

Caro cannot make this prima facie showing. ... Caro testified that an African-American officer replaced her in the CPSU and that a second African-American officer later replaced the first. ... Thus, no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants sought to replace Caro with a similarly qualified white employee.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a gender-discrimination plaintiff to establish protected status, an adverse employment decision, qualification for the position, and replacement by someone outside the protected class to make a prima facie case.

Lucile BARNETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1998-08-28(a)(1)

In order to prevail under Title VII, Barnett must first establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, which requires that she prove that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) an adverse employment decision was made against her; (3) she was otherwise qualified for the position from which the adverse decision arose; and (4) a person not of her protected class replaced her.

Section 2000e-2 requires a plaintiff claiming sex discrimination to show satisfactory job performance to establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Ellis v. Office Max Inc · filed 1998-11-17

Here, Ellis failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination because she failed to show that she was performing satisfactorily.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a sex discrimination claim based on an adverse employment action even when the employee was neither fired nor denied a promotion.

Neratko v. Frank · filed 1998-11-19(a)(1)

Because plaintiff was never fired or denied a promotion, his prima facie ease is slightly different than the typical disparate treatment case. To meet his burden, plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the job he performed; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A plaintiff using indirect proof of discriminatory discharge under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must establish satisfactory job performance as part of a prima facie case before the court considers pretext.

Alexander v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc. · filed 1998-12-09(a)(1)

Courts engage in a pretext analysis only after a plaintiff has established the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination, including job performance that satisfies the company's legitimate expectations.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a prima facie claim requires an adverse employment action and less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Leslie v. United Technologies Corp. · filed 1998-12-16(a)(1)

A prima facie case of race discrimination is established by showing that: (1) Plaintiff belongs to a racial minority; (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) Plaintiff was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees who were not members of the minority class; and (4) that Plaintiff was otherwise qualified for the position.

An employee who violates a facially legitimate attendance policy cannot establish the legitimate expectations element of a prima facie race discrimination claim.

Juanita E. Foster v. Arthur Andersen, LLP · filed 1999-02-23(a)(1)

Because a requirement that employees promptly notify their supervisors when they are going to be late is facially legitimate, and Foster concedes that she did not do so, she did not meet Andersen’s legitimate employment expectations and cannot establish a prima facie case.

A plaintiff using the indirect method to prove employment discrimination must show satisfactory job performance to establish a prima facie case.

Maddox v. Bais Yaakov Hebrew Parochial School · filed 1999-02-25(a)(1)

In sum, Maddox has failed to establish that she was performing satisfactorily. Because Maddox cannot establish the requisite element of satisfactory performance, she has failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-hire race claimant relying on circumstantial evidence to raise an inference of discrimination; speculation about another applicant's race does not suffice.

Schoenfeld v. Babbitt · filed 1999-03-04(a)(1)

As a result, there is no showing that Schoenfeld was treated differently than a minority applicant and he has failed to raise an inference that race was a factor in his non-selection.

The showings needed to establish a prima facie Title VII discrimination claim are flexible rather than rigid.

Schoenfeld v. Babbitt · filed 1999-03-04(a)(1)

We have repeatedly emphasized that the requisite showings that make up a prima facie case are not meant to be rigid or inflexible.

A replacement of the same gender does not necessarily defeat an employee’s sex discrimination claim.

Williams v. Raytheon Co. · filed 1999-04-06(a)(1)

That Williams was replaced by an employee of the same gender, however, does not necessarily defeat his sex discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a discriminatory discharge claim when a qualified employee alleges that employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment; the employee need not allege that their circumstances were identical.

Mitchell v. Moore · filed 1999-04-12(a)

Thus, a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge only requires a plaintiff to show that 1) he is a member of a racial minority; 2) he is qualified for the job from which he was discharged; and 3) others not in the protected class were treated more favorably. ... These formulations require no specificity in the facts to be averred to show the third prong of the prima facie case, and have not been applied to require more. ... Appellant, in his amended complaint, has clearly stated the facts necessary to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge.

A plaintiff using the burden-shifting method to prove sex discrimination must show that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably to establish a prima facie case.

Dovin v. Beaver Dam Emergency Medicine · filed 1999-04-27(a)(1)

Under this standard, Dr. Dovin first has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of sex discrimination by showing all of the following: (1) she is in a member of a protected class; (2) she met her employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) she was discharged or suffered some other adverse employment decision; and (4) similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. ... Because the plaintiff has totally failed to satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs discrimination claim.

A race discrimination plaintiff who cannot identify a similarly situated employee treated more favorably may still establish a prima facie case through circumstances indicating that race more likely than not caused the discharge.

McLaurin v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 1999-05-07(a)(1)

Notwithstanding his inability to show that a similarly situated employee was treated more favorably, Mr. McLaurin could meet his initial burden by showing that the circumstances surrounding his discharge indicate it is more likely than not that his race was the reason for his discharge. ... In his response to the motion for summary judgment, however, Mr. McLaurin has not pointed to any evidence from which it can be inferred that race was the motivating factor in his discharge.

A Title VII plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework must show protected class membership, an adverse employment action, satisfactory job performance, and that the position remained open to or was filled by similarly qualified applicants outside the protected class.

Brinkley v. Harbour Recreation Club · filed 1999-06-14(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, Brinkley must show (1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) that at the time of the adverse employment action she was performing at a level that met her employer's legitimate job expectations; and (4) that the position remained open to or was filled by similarly qualified applicants out- side the protected class.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by showing protected-class membership, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Stove v. Philadelphia School District · filed 1999-07-22(a)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Stove must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she performed her job satisfactorily; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the defendant employer has treated similarly-situated employees outside of the plaintiffs protected class more favorably.

A plaintiff using the indirect method to prove discriminatory discharge must show satisfactory job performance at the time of termination to establish a prima facie case under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Guzman v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 1999-08-10(a)(1)

However, her performance must have been satisfactory at the time of her termination not just at some time during her employment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee claiming race discrimination without direct evidence to show she was qualified for her position, including that she met her employer’s legitimate performance expectations.

Howell v. Stark County Community Action Agency · filed 1999-08-27(a)(1)

However, because she has not shown that she was “qualified” for her position, the plaintiff has failed to satisfy the third element of a prima facie case. To be “qualified” for her position, the plaintiff must demonstrate that “she was meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations and was performing to her employer’s satisfaction.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence supporting an inference that an employer acted against an employee because of sex.

Brogan v. La Salle University · filed 1999-10-14(a)(1)

While Brogan supports his allegation of sex discrimination with evidence of a number of defendants’ acts, none of these, either alone or together, would support an inference of impermissible discrimination against him by reason of his sex.

A discriminatory discharge claim under § 2000e-2(a) requires a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Jordan v. Warehouse Services, Inc. · filed 2000-01-18(a)

As discussed in Section IV. C., below, the court finds that summary judgment is due to be granted on Plaintiffs discriminatory discharge claim, because Plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Under the indirect method of proving sex discrimination, a plaintiff claiming a discriminatory transfer or failure to promote must show that similarly situated men received more favorable treatment.

Hoffman-Dombrowski v. Arlington International Racecourse, Inc. · filed 2000-02-14(a)(1)

Regardless, the court can find no supporting evidence for this allegation nor does Dom-browski provide any citations to the record or any argument that Arlington treated Majchrzak—or any other male who was similarly situated—more favorably. Accordingly, the court finds that Dombrowski has failed to establish her prima facie case for her wrongful transfer and failure to promote claims.

A plaintiff alleging disparate racial treatment without direct evidence must prove a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Azie v. BellSouth Advertising & Publishing Corp. · filed 2000-03-08(a)

Although this initial burden is not designed to be onerous, the plaintiff-employee still must prove a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. The Plaintiff here has failed to meet even this initial evidentiary burden.

A discrimination plaintiff need not show that someone outside her protected class replaced her or received the promotion to establish a prima facie case.

Bazargani v. Haverford State Hospital · filed 2000-03-31(a)

Under recent Third Circuit jurisprudence, the elements of the prima facie case of a discrimination claim are not to be rigidly applied. Indeed, a discrimination plaintiff need not show, as part of her prima facie case, that she was replaced by someone outside her protected class or that someone outside her protected class received the promotion.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race-discrimination plaintiff to show that similarly situated employees outside his racial group were treated differently.

Glover v. NMC Homecare, Inc. · filed 2000-07-11(a)

Although plaintiff has established the first two elements of his prima facie case of race discrimination, he is unable to satisfy the third element, i.e., that similarly situated non-minority employees were treated differently.

Section 2000e-2 permits a White employee to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination with evidence that an African-American replacement assumed most of her responsibilities.

Young v. Harris Hlth Care Inc · filed 2000-07-14(a)(1)

Further, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Young, we likewise conclude that Young established a prima facie case of reverse-race discrimination. Sylvester, an African-American, assumed the bulk of Young’s responsibilities and, of Young’s three replacements, was hired first.

A plaintiff alleging pregnancy discrimination must show satisfactory job performance at the time of the alleged adverse employment action to establish a prima facie case.

Karczynski v. Specialty Equipment Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2000-07-25(a)(1)

At the time of her alleged termination, World Dryer had discussed with Karczynski her failure to complete all of her assigned tasks. Karczynski does not dispute this. Thus, Karczynski has failed to establish that her performance was satisfactory at the time of her alleged termination.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie race-discrimination claim with circumstantial evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the employer used race in an adverse employment decision.

Gibbons v. Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM) · filed 2000-08-16(a)(1)

Many articulations of the prima-facie case exist, but the essence of the prima-facie case is that the employee presents circumstantial evidence sufficient to generate a reasonable inference by the fact finder that the employer used prohibited criteria in making an adverse decision about the employee.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discharged plaintiff alleging sex discrimination to establish a prima facie case; the court found that requirement unmet because a woman replaced her.

Drake v. Magnolia Management Corp. · filed 2000-10-05(a)(1)

The undisputed evidence show that Drake was replaced by Carolyn D’Amico, a 41-year-old married female. Accordingly, Drake has not come forward with evidence to establish a prima facie case that Magnolia unlawfully discriminated against her; therefore, Magnolia is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

In a workforce reduction, an employee is not replaced when existing employees take on her duties in addition to their own.

Kirkland v. St. Elizabeth Hospital · filed 2000-10-13(a)(1)

As set forth in Barnes, however, Ms. Kirkland was not replaced by either Ms. Lee or Ms. Marquette because the undisputed evidence establishes that they were not hired or reassigned to perform Ms. Kirkland’s duties. Instead, Ms. Lee and Ms. Marquette were assigned to perform Ms. Kirkland’s duties in addition to their other duties.

A prima facie sex discrimination claim requires membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Minott v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2000-10-17(a)(1)

Minott easily satisfies the first three prongs of the McDonnell test. First, she was a member of a protected class, namely, she is a woman and she was pregnant. Second, she was qualified for her position, as evidenced by her performance evaluations. Third, she suffered an adverse employment action, namely, termination.

A Title VII plaintiff relying on the indirect method must show that he met his employer’s legitimate expectations to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Contreras v. Suncast Corporation, an Illinois Corporation, Thomas Tisbo, John Baunach, Randall Guillotte, and · filed 2001-01-03(a)(1)

Because Contreras had to prove that he was meeting the legitimate expectations of Suncast in order to make the prima facie case for both his Title VII discriminatory discharge and discriminatory job assignment claims, and he has failed to do so, we affirm the district court’s rulings in both of these matters.

Section 2000e-2 requires an employee claiming national-origin discrimination to establish a prima facie case or offer probative evidence that the employer’s stated reason for termination was false.

Pandya v. Edward Hospital · filed 2001-01-17

Here, judgment as a matter of law was appropriate because the plaintiff could neither establish a prima facie case nor muster any probative evidence that her employer’s explanation for her termination was false.

A discrimination plaintiff’s qualification for a position may be inferred from having held it for a significant period.

Gaston v. Home Depot USA, Inc. · filed 2001-02-02(a)

In cases where a plaintiff has held a position for a significant period of time, qualification for that position sufficient to satisfy the test of a prima facie case can be inferred.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discharge because of race; a circumstantial discriminatory-discharge claim requires evidence of a replacement outside the protected class or more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee.

Kelliher v. Glickman · filed 2001-03-08(a)(1)

Title VII makes it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). ... The court finds that Kelliher has not set forth sufficient facts to survive summary judgment on the issue of his replacement by someone outside of his protected class.

A woman alleging discriminatory termination can establish a prima facie disparate treatment claim by showing that she was qualified and that the circumstances support an inference of sex discrimination.

Ramos v. Marriott International, Inc. · filed 2001-03-14(a)(1)

In light of the low burden, we find that plaintiff has made out a prima facie case.

A plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence of intentional employment discrimination must establish a prima facie case before the employer must give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.

Hamilton v. Texas Department of Transportation · filed 2001-05-10(a)(1)

In a case alleging intentional discrimination, a plaintiff relying on inferential or circumstantial evidence must demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination.

A Title VII disparate treatment plaintiff must show that he was qualified for the position and that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably.

Eaves v. K-Mart Corp. · filed 2001-06-07(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under a disparate treatment theory, the plaintiff must demonstrate, inter alia, that he was qualified for the position and that others similarly situated were treated more favorably. ... For these reasons, the Court finds that the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Section 2000e-2 requires a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination to show membership in a protected group, an adverse employment decision, qualification for the position, and replacement by someone outside the protected class.

Berry v. Sunrise Home Health Care, Inc. · filed 2001-08-09

Berry has failed to state a claim of employment discrimination. To prove a prima facie case of employment discrimination, Berry must show that she: 1) is a member of a protected group; 2) was subject to an adverse employment decision; 3) was qualified for the position; and 4) was replaced by a person outside of the protected class.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory termination must provide admissible evidence of competent job performance to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

Gboneso v. Care · filed 2001-10-09(a)

We reject Gboneso’s contention that the district court erred by concluding that he failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Gboneso did not provide any admissible evidence whatsoever establishing that he performed his job competently.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts suggesting a connection between protected class membership and dismissal to establish a prima facie discrimination claim.

Peña v. Crowley American Transport, Inc. · filed 2001-10-26(a)(1)

Plaintiff fails to set forth any facts that would remotely suggest a causal nexus between his membership in a protected class and his dismissal. Absent such a showing, plaintiffs Title VII claim fails as a matter of law for lack of a prima facie case.

An applicant who was not qualified for the position cannot establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Section 2000e-2(a)(1).

Larkin v. Perkins · filed 2001-10-29(a)(1)

contrary to the district court’s conclusion that Larkin was not quali- fied for the position for which he was applying.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discharge because of sex, and a plaintiff without direct evidence of discrimination may show improper motive through disparate treatment.

Morrow v. American Bag Corp. · filed 2001-11-08(a)(1)

Absent direct evidence of discrimination based upon sex, a plaintiff can demonstrate an employer’s improper motivation by establishing disparate treatment of male and female employees.

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff must show that he was qualified for his position as part of his prima facie case.

Mason v. United Air Lines, Inc. · filed 2001-12-12(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VII, Mason was required to show that he was a member of a protected group, was qualified for his position, and suffered an adverse employment action.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires evidence supporting a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination; vague statements alone are insufficient.

Lappin v. Laidlaw Transit Inc. · filed 2001-12-18(a)

Lappin fails to establish a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination under Title VII because she has put forth little, if any, evidence to support a presumption of discrimination.

A religious discrimination plaintiff must show that similarly situated people outside the protected class were treated more favorably to establish a prima facie case under § 2000e-2.

Thompson v. St. Johns Unified School District · filed 2002-01-17

Though the district court erred in failing to consider employment actions taken by the defendant the following year as evidence of the defendant’s alleged discriminatory practice, to wit, the hiring and promotion of two Mormons, those actions provide no support to Thompson because those persons were not “similarly situated” as required under Title VII.

A plaintiff fired well after pregnancy must show that its effects still existed at the time of termination to establish a prima facie pregnancy discrimination claim under Section 2000e-2(a)(1).

Solomen v. Redwood Advisory Co. · filed 2002-01-31(a)(1)

Essentially, a plaintiff who was not pregnant at or near the time she was terminated must demonstrate that the effects of her pregnancy continued to exist at the time she was terminated, either in actual fact or in the thoughts and actions of those responsible for firing her.

A plaintiff using the indirect method to prove race discrimination must show that he met his employer’s legitimate performance expectations.

Young v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2002-02-08(a)(1)

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he met the employer’s legitimate performance expectations (necessary element (2)), when he tested positive for cocaine.

A Title VII employment discrimination claim fails when the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Harley v. Caneel Bay, Inc. · filed 2002-03-22

I will grant the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because Harley’s Title VII claim fails to establish a prima facie claim of employment discrimination. In particular, Harley can neither prove that any similarly situated male employees were treated more favorably nor establish that she was constructively discharged.

In a reduction in force, a sex-discrimination plaintiff must offer evidence that the employer singled the employee out for an impermissible reason to establish the fourth element of a prima facie case.

Whitt v. Lockheed Martin Utility Services, Inc. · filed 2002-04-15(a)(1)

For these reasons, in the context of a RIF, the fourth element of the prima facie case of discrimination must be modified; instead of showing that he was replaced by someone outside of the protected class, a plaintiff must offer some “direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons.”

When discrimination is supported by indirect or circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie Title VII claim by showing protected status, qualification, an adverse employment action, and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Little v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc. · filed 2002-04-22(a)(1)

Where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, ie., only indirect or circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) he or she is within a protected group; (2) he or she is qualified for the position; (3) he or she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on membership in the protected group.

A plaintiff relying on indirect evidence to prove sex discrimination must show that she met her employer’s legitimate expectations or that the employer applied those expectations more favorably to similarly situated employees.

Peele, Patricia v. Country Mutual · filed 2002-04-30(a)(1)

In this case, the record clearly demonstrates that Peele’s job performance was unsatisfactory. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Country Mutual enforced its legitimate employment expectations in a disparate manner. As such, we are unable to infer discriminatory intent under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

A discharged employee may establish a prima facie case of race discrimination even if the employer replaces her with someone of the same race.

Robertson v. Jefferson County Rehabilitation & Health Center · filed 2002-05-13(a)(1)

The fact that Plaintiff was replaced by another white female, standing alone, in no way forecloses the possibility that Plaintiff can show that she was fired because of her race in violation of Title VII.

A plaintiff relying on indirect evidence of race discrimination must show that he was qualified for the position; failing a required knowledge exam defeats that prima facie showing.

Wimberly v. Illinois Central Railroad · filed 2002-06-24(a)(1)

In this case, Plaintiff did not pass the required knowledge exam and cannot show that he was qualified for the locomotive engineer position. Accordingly, this court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff cannot meet his burden to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

A sex discrimination claim based on indirect evidence requires a prima facie showing that the claimant was qualified and suffered an adverse employment action under circumstances suggesting sex discrimination.

Raiola v. Union Bank of Switzerland, LLC · filed 2002-07-09(a)(1)

Because she provides no direct evidence of discrimination (ie., only indirect or circumstantial evidence), Raiola must establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination by showing that: (1)she is within a protected group; (2) she is qualified for the position; (3) she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on her sex.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits denying promotion because of sex; a plaintiff using indirect evidence must show that she met her employer’s legitimate expectations.

Lim, Soo-Siang v. Trustees IN Univ · filed 2002-07-19(a)(1)

By even the most permissive of accounts, Lim did not meet the research and publishing criteria established by her Department. Accordingly, she failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.

A race discrimination plaintiff must show that he met his employer’s legitimate expectations to establish a prima facie case under Title VII.

Figgs v. Gepner · filed 2002-07-23(a)(1)

For these reasons, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to establish that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate employee expectations at the time of his suspension. Therefore, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case.

A temporary replacement outside an employee’s protected class does not establish the replacement element of a discrimination claim when the permanent replacement is within that class.

Bush v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. · filed 2002-09-06(a)(1)

Since Bush did not dispute the fact that Malki was hired on a permanent basis, or that Kennedy was merely an interim replacement, she cannot make out her prima facie case on this ground.

A discharged employee who was not replaced must show that employees outside the protected class remained in similar positions to establish a prima facie Title VII discrimination case.

Dean v. Property One Inc · filed 2002-10-11(a)(1)

Because Dean concedes she was not replaced by a man, and because she offers no evidence that men remained in positions similar to hers after her discharge, she fails to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

Title VII race and sex discrimination claims require a prima facie case and, when the employer gives a nondiscriminatory reason, evidence that the reason is pretextual.

White v. Warren Correctional Institution · filed 2002-10-17

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of WCI. White failed to establish a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination and did not offer any evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that WCI’s reasons for terminating his employment were pretextual.

A plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must establish a prima facie case by showing protected-class membership, qualification, an adverse employment action, and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Staff v. Pall Corp. · filed 2002-11-13(a)(1)

To satisfy his initial burden, a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment must demonstrate that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position for which he was not hired or, as alternatively described by some courts, he satisfactorily performed the duties required by his position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of his membership in a protected class.

A plaintiff can raise an inference of racial discrimination by showing that her replacement was outside her protected class.

Cherry v. Ritenour School Dist. · filed 2003-01-31(a)

The Court therefore concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently raised an inference of discrimination to satisfy the fourth element of her discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee claiming religious discrimination over a conflicting work requirement to show that the employer disciplined them for failing to comply with that requirement.

Jones v. TEK Ind. · filed 2003-02-11(a)(1)

Inmates have not shown that they would have retained their jobs with TEK—that they would not have been terminated for excessive absenteeism—had they worked on Saturdays and other religious festivals, in violation of the tenets of their faith. Thus, Inmates fail to prove the third element of a prima facie case for religious discrimination under Title VII: that they were disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting requirement of their employment.

The 1991 amendments did not remove the discharge or discipline requirement from a prima facie religious discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

David A. Goldmeier and Terry C. Goldmeier v. Allstate Insurance Company · filed 2003-07-24(a)(1)

Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, we hold that discharge or discipline remains an element of a prima facie cases of religious discrimination in employment.

A pregnancy discrimination plaintiff using indirect proof must establish a prima facie case, including rejection and either continued recruitment for the position or more favorable treatment of a nonpregnant person.

Venturelli v. Arc Community Services, Inc. · filed 2003-09-19(a)(1)

Under the indirect method of proof, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. To make a prima facie case, Venturelli must show that: (1) she was pregnant; (2) she applied and was qualified for the position sought; (3) she was rejected; and (4) the position remained open and ARC continued to seek applicants from persons of Venturelli's qualifications. ... An alternate means of proving prong four is to establish that someone who was not pregnant received more favorable treatment. ... We hold that, because Venturelli cannot establish the third or fourth elements of the prima facie case, she is not entitled to reach a jury via the indirect method of proving a Title VII violation.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge who cannot show that someone replaced him must offer other evidence supporting an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie case.

Putman v. Unity Health System · filed 2003-11-07(a)

In this case, Putman did not present evidence that he was replaced as a LAN Analyst. Therefore, to establish a prima facie case, he needed to present some other evidence that would give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

A pregnancy discrimination plaintiff using the indirect method must establish that she was rejected and that the employer continued seeking similarly qualified applicants or treated a nonpregnant person more favorably.

Venturelli, Celena v. ARC Comm Services · filed 2003-11-26(a)(1)

We hold that, because Venturelli cannot establish the third or fourth elements of the prima facie case, she is not entitled to reach a jury via the indirect method of proving a Title VII violation.

A prima facie sex discrimination claim requires evidence that the employee was qualified for the job and that employees of another sex were treated differently.

Boone v. Larson Manufacturing Co. · filed 2003-12-02(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, Boone must demonstrate: (1) that she is within the protected class; (2) that she was qualified to perform her job; (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that nonmembers of her class (the opposite gender in the Title VII sex discrimination context) were not treated the same. ... While the burden is not onerous, Plaintiff has not established elements two and four of her prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a claimant must establish a prima facie case, including qualification for the job.

Strong v. Orkand Corp. · filed 2003-12-08(a)(1)

Strong did not present a prima facie case of race discrimination within the meaning of Title VII. Orkand’s affidavits and exhibits establish that Strong was not qualified for the position from which he was terminated.

A plaintiff claiming discriminatory discharge under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must show circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Erhunmwunse v. Edison Parking Corp. · filed 2004-01-29(a)(1)

The Court must grant Edison summary judgment because Erhunmwunse has failed to even raise a prima facie case of discrimination. Specifically, he has failed to show he was terminated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A Title VII failure-to-hire plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing protected-class membership, qualification for the position, denial of the position, and an additional basis to infer discrimination.

Thomas v. Troy City Board of Education · filed 2004-02-09(a)(1)

To make out a prima-facie case of discrimination against the board, Thomas need show only the following: (1) He is a member of a protected class, (2) he was qualified for the position, (3) he was denied the position, and (4) some additional factor that would allow an inference of discrimination.

A plaintiff alleging employment discrimination must make a prima facie showing of protected status, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and circumstances suggesting discrimination.

Lanier v. I.B.M. Corp. · filed 2004-03-08(a)(1)

Generally, in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must present evidence that: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) her job performance was satisfactory; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under conditions giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

In a race discrimination case involving a reduction in force, an employee can establish a prima facie case by showing that employees outside the protected class absorbed the employee’s duties.

Williams v. United Technologies Carrier Corp. · filed 2004-03-25(a)

Therefore, viewed in a light most favorable to Williams, Williams’ duties were not eliminated, but were absorbed by other non-African-American employees. Accordingly, Williams has demonstrated a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging race, color, or national origin employment discrimination to establish a prima facie case.

Malla v. University of Connecticut · filed 2004-03-31(a)(1)

First, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination on account of race, color, or national origin.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination with circumstantial evidence supporting a reasonable inference of discriminatory intent.

Hogan v. BellSouth Corp. · filed 2004-07-29(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case using circumstantial evidence, plaintiff must produce evidence that (1) she was a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) evidence by which a finder of fact could reasonably conclude that her employer intended to discriminate on the basis of race and/or sex if the employer’s actions were to remain unexplained.

A plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence of employment discrimination must establish a prima facie case that supports an inference of discriminatory motive.

Thompson v. Exxon Mobil Corp. · filed 2004-10-25(a)(1)

Where, as here, there is no direct evidence of discrimination, the plaintiff must initially establish a prima facie case by satisfying a multi-factor test from which a discriminatory motive may be inferred, thus creating a rebuttable presumption of intentional discrimination.

A plaintiff who proves the four elements of a prima facie disparate treatment case permits an inference of discriminatory intent unless the employer presents rebuttal evidence.

Marcia R. LIEBERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edward v. GANT Et Al., Defendants-Appellees · filed 1980-07-17(a)

This extract says nothing about the need to prove discriminatory intent; the evident thought was that proof of the four elements warranted an inference of such intent unless the defendant presented at least some evidence in rebuttal.

A Title VII sex or race discrimination claim requires proof that the employee was qualified for the position allegedly denied to them.

Cobb v. Philadelphia Gas Works · filed 2004-12-15

Nothing in the record demonstrates that Cobb was qualified for the positions she claims were denied to her, and we thus agree that Cobb’s Title VII sex and race discrimination claims (and related state law claims) also fail as a matter of law.

A claimant who was not replaced by someone outside her protected class fails the court’s prima facie test for discriminatory discharge under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Myers v. Crestone International LLC · filed 2005-01-14(a)(1)

We find that Myers was not replaced by someone outside of her protected class. Accordingly, we agree that Myers has not made a prima facie showing of discrimination under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination to present some evidence that the employer intended to discriminate because of protected status.

Cook v. Corporation of the President of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints · filed 2005-01-20(a)

A plaintiff’s prima facie case requires a showing that she (1) belongs to a protected class, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, (3) was qualified for her position, and (4) has presented some evidence indicating that the employer intended to discriminate against her. ... The summary-judgment record is devoid of evidence supporting any element of Ms. Cook’s prima facie case.

Unsupported allegations of more favorable treatment do not establish a prima facie claim of national origin discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Oguezuonu v. Genesis Health Ventures, Inc. · filed 2005-01-28(a)(1)

Oguezuonu’s unsupported allegations are simply insufficient to establish a prima facie case of national origin discrimination.

A plaintiff alleging religious discrimination need not compare herself with similarly situated coworkers to establish the fourth element of a prima facie discriminatory-discharge case.

Morales v. McKesson Health Solutions, LLC · filed 2005-03-22(a)(1)

Thus, the district court erred in requiring Morales to demonstrate that similarly situated employees were treated differently.

A sex-discrimination plaintiff does not establish a prima facie case when her position was eliminated and she cannot show that a later male hire replaced her.

Lettieri v. Equant, Inc. · filed 2005-04-21(a)(1)

Lettieri provides no evidence of DeMarco’s daily duties at Equant so she has not shown that he replaced her. In fact, the evidence shows that her position was eliminated. Thus Lettieri has not met the fourth prong of the prima facie test, and the Court will grant Equant’s motion for summary judgment on Count I, the discrimination claim.

A plaintiff can satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie discriminatory discharge claim by showing that the employer did not eliminate the job after discharge.

Lyons v. Red Roof Inns, Inc. · filed 2005-05-12(a)(1)

We also conclude that Lyons has satisfied the fourth element of her prima facie case, as there is no evidence in the record indicating that her position at RRI was eliminated following her termination.

A discharged employee can satisfy the qualification element of a discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a) despite violating a workplace policy.

Vasquez v. Claire's Accessories, Inc. · filed 2005-09-28(a)

While Vasquez’s violation of the after hours policy may potentially serve as a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for Claire’s decision to terminate Vasquez’s employment, it does not serve to prove that Vasquez was not “qualified” for the position in the first place.

A plaintiff alleging sex discrimination through circumstantial evidence must show that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably and that she was qualified for the job.

Samuels v. University of South AL · filed 2005-10-28(a)(1)

The district court properly granted summary judgment to USA as to Samuels’s sex discrimination claim for wrongful termination because Samuels failed to establish that similarly-situated male employees were treated more favorably or that she was qualified for the position from which she was terminated.

A prima facie disparate treatment claim requires showing that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably.

Pruitt v. ESCO Corporation · filed 2005-11-29

As the district court correctly concluded, Pruitt is unable to show that a similarly situated employee, i.e., one who hit another employee, was treated more favorably, and is therefore, unable to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.

A plaintiff claiming sex discrimination under Title VII must show that her job performance met her employer’s legitimate expectations to establish a prima facie case.

Salter v. Alltel Communications, Inc. · filed 2005-12-08(a)(1)

Plaintiffs has also failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination. For the same reasons detailed above, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that her job performance was in line with her employer’s legitimate expectations.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory non-promotion through indirect evidence must show that similarly situated people outside her protected class were treated more favorably.

Blue v. Defense Logistics Agency · filed 2006-05-24(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case for discriminatory non-promotion using indirect evidence, a plaintiff must show that she is a member of protected class; that she was qualified for, applied for, and rejected for a position; and that non-members of the protected class were treated more favorably.

A plaintiff alleging race or gender disparate treatment under § 2000e-2 must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

Batch v. Jefferson County Child Development Council · filed 2006-06-07

Because Batch failed to show that similarly situated white or female employees were treated more favorably with respect to the application of JCCDC’s sick leave policy, we conclude that he did not establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination.

A plaintiff relying on comparators to establish a prima facie Title VII disparate-treatment claim must show that similarly situated employees outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

Dickinson v. Springhill Hospitals, Inc. · filed 2006-06-29(a)

Indeed, she was unable to identify similarly situated employees, or comparators to herself. ... In this appeal, Dickinson does not challenge that finding, which alone is sufficient to affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of Springhill.

A sex discrimination plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by showing that a comparable person outside the protected class received better treatment, without showing that someone outside the class replaced her.

Klaus v. Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Ohio · filed 2006-06-30

Plaintiff need not show that she was replaced by a person outside of the protected class. The fourth element of the prima facie case of sex-based discrimination may be satisfied through a showing that a “comparable non-protected person was treated better.”

A plaintiff alleging sex discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) can establish a prima facie disparate treatment case by showing protected status, job qualification, an adverse employment action, and better treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Murphy v. M.C. Lint, Inc. · filed 2006-07-27(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination or harassment on a typical disparate treatment theory, Murphy must demonstrate that: (1) she is within a protected class; (2) she was qualified to perform her job, or was meeting the legitimate expectations of her employer; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

Section 2000e-2 allows a plaintiff to prove race or national origin discrimination indirectly by showing satisfactory performance, an adverse employment action, and more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Keri v. Board of Trustees of Purdue University · filed 2006-08-14(a)(1)

To do that, he “must demonstrate that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) his performance met his employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated others not in his protected class received more favorable treatment.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence supporting an inference that an adverse employment action was motivated by race or national origin.

Diaz v. TMC SERVICES · filed 2006-08-31(a)(1)

In the absence of evidence that Vitiello or anyone else at TMC acted against Diaz for discriminatory reasons, Diaz has not stated a prima facie case.

For a Title VII prima facie case, an employer cannot use a certification test alleged to have been administered discriminatorily to show that the employee was unqualified.

Thanongsinh v. Board of Education, District U-46 and Hanan Javetz, Individually and in His Official Capacity · filed 2006-09-13(a)(1)

We do not think that the defendants can rely on the certification test to establish that the plaintiff lacks the requisite qualifications to be a Group V Head Custodian. After all, Mr. Thanongsinh alleges that the administration of that examination in a racially discriminatory manner was the vehicle employed by the school board to demote him on account of his race. Consequently, the results of that examination cannot be the basis of establishing that Mr. Thanongsinh is unqualified as a Head Custodian.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence of an adverse employment action and circumstances supporting an inference of racial discrimination.

Taylor v. Brandywine School District · filed 2006-09-29(a)(1)

In order to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, a claimant must demonstrate that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position she held or sought; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated persons who are not members of the protected class were treated more favorably, or that the circumstances of her termination give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee alleging a racially discriminatory discharge to show circumstances supporting an inference of unlawful discrimination.

Byrd v. May Department Stores Co. · filed 2006-10-27(a)(1)

Even assuming that the incidents identified by plaintiff in her deposition occurred as described by plaintiff, the court concludes that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that her termination occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

When an employer fills a position with someone who lacks its posted qualifications, it cannot rely on those qualifications alone to defeat another applicant’s prima facie Title VII discrimination case.

Scheidemantle v. Slippery Rock Univ · filed 2006-12-19(a)(1)

Because Slippery Rock placed similarly “unqualified” males in the locksmith position, it could no longer point to the job posting’s objective qualifications as a valid reason for refusing to promote Scheidemantle.