42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

A pregnancy-discrimination plaintiff can satisfy the satisfactory-performance element of a prima facie case when conflicting evidence creates a genuine factual dispute about her performance.

Pagan-Alejandro v. PR ACDelco Service Center, Inc. · filed 2006-12-28(a)(1)

Taken this disputed fact in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the court concludes that Plaintiff has established a genuine issue of material fact as to her job performance. Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the second prong of the test for a prima-facie case of pregnancy discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires facts supporting a prima facie claim of sex discrimination; the termination of five men among nine employees did not support Hughes’ claim.

Hughes v. Crucible Service Centers · filed 2007-01-22(a)(1)

Hughes fails to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) because, even assuming all of her allegations to be true, there is no dispute that five of the nine employees terminated in January 1999 were men.

A race discrimination claim requires evidence of an adverse employment action and less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees outside the protected group.

Grice v. FMC Technologies Inc. · filed 2007-01-30(a)(1)

We also find no record evidence supporting Grice’s allegations that he was treated less favorably than other employees.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence of discrimination to show that similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s protected class were treated more favorably.

Weatherspoon v. Baptist Hospital, Inc. · filed 2007-08-08(a)

In a circumstantial evidence case such as Weatherspoon’s, the plaintiff has the initial burden on summary judgment to present evidence that: “(1) [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) [he] was subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) [his] employer treated similarly situated employees outside of [his] protected class more favorably than [he] was treated; and (4) [he] was qualified to do the job.” Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, 447 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2006). ... Weatherspoon presented no evidence of other employees who violated the drug and alcohol policy and were not fired.

A failure-to-hire plaintiff need not show that the employer favored someone outside her protected class to establish a prima facie discrimination case.

Howard v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 2007-08-17(a)(1)

Thus, in order to establish a prima facie case, it is not necessary for an African American plaintiff to show that she was disadvantaged by the employer’s hiring of a Caucasian or other non-African American applicant.

A male interim appointee does not establish that a female employee was replaced by a man under § 2000e-2(a)(1) when the permanent replacement is a woman.

Potera-Haskins v. Gamble · filed 2007-09-28(a)(1)

Kudrna was invited to apply for the permanent position. He was not accepted. Rather, MSU hired a female, Trida Bin-ford, as the permanent coach in April 2005. Kudrna was not a replacement for Plaintiff. He merely served as interim head coach until a permanent replacement was hired. The national search for the best qualified person to fill the permanent replacement role was both reasonable and necessary. It resulted in a female replacement. Under such circumstances, the elements of a Title VII claim are not present and the Hagans test requirements have not and cannot be met.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of race-based discriminatory discharge by showing membership in a protected class, an adverse employment action, satisfactory job performance, and replacement by a similarly qualified person outside the protected class.

Clark v. Thi of South Carolina at Moncks Corner, LLC · filed 2007-11-02(a)(1)

Although the Fourth Circuit opinions vary, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly articulated the test for establishing a prima facie case of wrongful termination on the basis of race, as this test is the one described by the Supreme Court in St Mary’s.

For a discriminatory discharge claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff who was replaced by someone of the opposite sex need not show that the replacement had similar qualifications to establish a prima facie case.

Vincent v. BRERWER CO. · filed 2007-12-19(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, however, a plaintiff who can prove that she was replaced by a member of the opposite sex need not show that she possesses qualifications similar to those of her replacement.

A plaintiff who shows that a person outside her protected class replaced her need not show that the replacement had similar qualifications to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

Vincent v. Brewer Company · filed 2007-12-19(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, however, a plaintiff who can prove that she was replaced by a member of the opposite sex need not show that she possesses qualifications similar to those of her replacement.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits discharge based on national origin; a disparate-treatment plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing replacement outside the protected class or more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside it.

Villegas v. Harris County and Ron Hickman, Harris County Constable, Precinct 4 · filed 2007-12-20(a)

The final element requires Villegas to raise a material fact issue that Harris County replaced him with someone who was not Hispanic, or, alternatively, that he received less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees who were not Hispanic. ... Because the evidence fails to raise a fact issue on this final element of Villegas’s prima facie case, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment on his Title VII national origin discrimination claim.

In a failure-to-hire claim, meeting the job’s objective minimum requirements can establish the qualification element of a prima facie case.

Sharkey v. Dixie Electric Membership Corp. · filed 2008-01-23(a)(1)

Because it is undisputed that Sharkey had achieved the minimum test scores necessary to be considered for the Lineman Helper position, that evidence should have been deemed sufficient to establish that Sharkey was qualified for the position, and accordingly to deny DEMCO’s motion for summary judgment on this aspect of Sharkey’s prima facie case.

A plaintiff relying on the McDonnell Douglas framework to prove race-based discharge must show replacement by someone outside the protected class.

Dunbar v. Food Lion · filed 2008-03-19(a)(1)

Plaintiff alleges that he was discharged from his position as Market Manager, due to his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). ... Dunbar has not established a prima fa-cie case of discrimination based on his race. The only evidence in the record is that Dunbar was replaced by an African-American.

Under the indirect method of proving discriminatory discharge, an employee must show that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate job expectations.

Williams v. Airborne Express, Inc. · filed 2008-04-08(a)(1)

Williams did not establish a prima facie case. Airborne already had disciplined him three times (twice in the previous year) and still he was insubordinate again, so he could not show that he was meeting Airborne’s legitimate job expectations.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a sex-discrimination plaintiff relying on comparators to show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

Brockie v. Ameripath, Inc. · filed 2008-04-11(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case, Brockie must present evidence that she (1) is within a protected class, (2) was qualified for the position, (3) was subject to an adverse employment action, and (4) was replaced by someone outside the protected class, or that others, similarly situated yet outside her protected class, were treated more favorably than she. ... Brockie did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under title VII.

A plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie discrimination case if replaced by someone in the same protected class or unable to show less favorable treatment than a similarly situated person outside that class.

Shortz v. Auburn University at Montgomery · filed 2008-04-24(a)(1)

A plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie discrimination case if he is replaced by a person in his protected class or fails to show that he was treated less favorably than a similarly-situated person outside his protected class.

A failure-to-hire plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing that he belongs to a protected class, applied and was qualified for an open position, was rejected, and the position remained open or went to someone outside that class.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Comcast of Georgia, Inc. · filed 2008-05-14(a)(1)

In a failure-to-hire case, the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by demonstrating that: (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he applied and was qualified for a position for which the employer was accepting applications; (3) despite his qualifications, he was not hired; and (4) the position remained open or was filled by another person outside of his protected class.

A pregnancy-discrimination plaintiff must show a nexus between her pregnancy and an adverse employment action to raise an inference of discrimination.

Doe v. C.A.R.S Protection Plus, Inc. · filed 2008-05-30(a)

The fourth element requires that a plaintiff show some nexus between her pregnancy and the adverse employment action. The nexus between a plaintiffs pregnancy and an adverse employment action raises an inference of discrimination.

A discriminatory discharge claim under § 2000e-2 requires circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Jaiyeola v. Carrier Corp. · filed 2008-06-26(a)(1)

Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, it is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” ... Considering that Dr. Downey had both hired and terminated Plaintiff, that Plaintiff had the poorest performance ratings in MTS, and that Defendant had undertaken continuing workforce reductions (which eventually led to the elimination of the entire MTS Department), this Court finds that the circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs termination do not give rise to an inference of discrimination.

A discriminatory discharge plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case when she does not show that her replacement had roughly equivalent qualifications.

Villanustre v. Hard Rock Cafe Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2008-06-05(a)(1)

After reviewing this uncontested evidence, the Court determines that Plaintiff Villanustre has failed to establish her prima facie case because she did not show that she was replaced by an employee with roughly equivalent qualifications.

A pregnancy discrimination plaintiff satisfies the prima facie qualification element by showing the basic skills needed for the position.

Helmes v. South Colonie Central School District · filed 2008-07-08(a)

To satisfy the second element of the prima facie case, plaintiff need only make the “minimal showing that she possesses the basic skills necessary for performance of [the] job.”

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff using the indirect method must show that she met her employer’s legitimate performance expectations and that similarly situated employees outside her protected class received better treatment.

Pough v. SBC COMMUNICATIONS, INC. · filed 2008-08-06(a)(1)

Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to her 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). ... For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of race, sex, and age discrimination or of retaliation.

A plaintiff claiming discriminatory termination under Title VII must show that similarly situated employees were treated differently to establish a prima facie case.

Gibson v. Shelly Co. · filed 2008-08-19

We conclude that Gibson failed to establish that he was similarly situated to other employees who were not terminated and, therefore, failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination.

A plaintiff alleging national-origin discrimination through circumstantial evidence must show that the employer replaced her with someone outside her protected class or treated similarly situated employees outside that class more favorably.

Alvarez v. Royal Atlantic Developers, Inc. · filed 2008-08-21(a)(1)

Alvarez presents no legal support for this particular argument, and, in any case, the Court does not find that her self-serving assertion that she was not guilty of any misconduct obviates the need for her to establish that Defendant either replaced her with a non-Cuban controller, or treated non-Cuban employees who were similarly situated to Alvarez more favorably than she.

A plaintiff alleging sex discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must establish a prima facie case, including that the employer treated similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s class more favorably.

Curtis v. Broward County · filed 2008-09-16(a)(1)

Curtis has not established a prima facie case of gender discrimination. To do so, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her job; (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) her employer treated similarly situated employees outside her class more favorably.

When a discriminatory transfer claim rests on circumstantial evidence, the employee must show that people outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Rogers v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. · filed 2008-12-02(a)(1)

As the Plaintiff is unable to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas paradigm, her claim under Title VII is without merit.

A Title VII discrimination claimant must identify a similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably to establish a prima facie case through this framework.

Flora R.S. Selby v. Tyco Healthcare Group, L.P. · filed 2008-12-09(a)

With regard to Selby’s discrimination claim, she has not identified any similarly situated employee - that is, one with the same attendance and discipline problems - who was treated differently than her. Accordingly, she did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell-Douglas framework.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that allegedly discriminatory acts by independent evaluators were performed at the employer’s direction or on its behalf to establish a prima facie claim against the employer.

Green v. CSX Hotels, Inc. · filed 2009-01-15(a)(1)

Without evidence that any of these allegedly discriminatory actions were performed at the direction of or on behalf of Defendant, Plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

A gender discrimination plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must show an adverse employment action, more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s gender, and qualification for the job.

Hawkins v. Potter · filed 2009-03-03(a)(1)

Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII by showing: (1) he was subjected to adverse employment action; (2) his employer treated similarly situated employees outside his gender classification more favorably; and (3) he was qualified to do the job.

A worker who was not replaced fails to establish a prima facie Title VII discrimination case without evidence that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Salinas v. AT&T Corp. · filed 2009-03-12(a)(1)

Salinas has offered no evidence of AT&T's favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside his protected class, and fails to even assert that AT&T treated him less favorably than non-Hispanic or female employees. Because Salinas cannot establish a prima facie case, summary judgment is appropriate as to his discrimination claim and we need not reach the issue of pretext.

Section 2000e-2 requires an employee bringing a gender discrimination claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework to show that someone outside the protected class was treated more favorably to establish a prima facie case.

Brown v. Hamot Medical Center · filed 2009-03-26

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, an employee seeking to establish a gender discrimination claim has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case by showing: (1) that she was a member of a protected class, (2) that she was qualified for the job, and (3) another person, not in the protected class, was treated more favorably.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits refusing to hire a person because of race or sex; a qualified applicant can establish a prima facie claim by showing that an applicant outside the protected class was hired.

Walker v. Potter · filed 2009-04-17(a)(1)

This Court finds that, for the purposes of the instant Motion, Plaintiff established a prima facie case of race and gender discrimination.

An employee using the indirect method to prove discrimination must show satisfactory job performance and more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.

Johnson v. Potter · filed 2009-04-17(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case, an employee must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class, (2) he performed his job satisfactorily, (3) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) the employer treated similarly situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably.

An employee disciplined for violating a work rule can establish a prima facie discrimination case by showing either that he did not violate the rule or that white employees were treated more favorably under nearly identical circumstances.

Turner v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. · filed 2009-05-19(a)

Although Turner points to Thomas Schmitt, Frank Mouney, and Joshua Hall to demonstrate white employees were treated more favorably, these individuals were not disciplined under “nearly identical” circumstances.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits discharge because of race; when an employee relies on replacement by someone outside the protected class to establish a prima facie case, the employee must also show satisfactory job performance.

Prater v. Fedex Corporate Services Inc · filed 2009-06-18(a)

First, the fact that an African American employee was replaced by a Caucasian employee is just one part of a four-part test for establishing prima facie of discrimination.

A religious accommodation claimant establishes a prima facie case by showing a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with work, notice to the employer, and discipline for observing that belief.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Thompson Contracting · filed 2009-06-25(a)(1)

For a prima facie case of religious discrimination, the EEOC must prove that Yisrael: (1) had a bona fide religious belief that prevented him from working on Saturdays;(2) informed Thompson of his belief; and (3) was disciplined for failing to work on Saturdays.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires evidence supporting an inference of race discrimination to establish a prima facie discriminatory discharge claim.

Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc. · filed 2009-06-30(a)

However, I conclude that plaintiff cannot demonstrate that she was discharged under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A prima facie claim of racial discrimination under § 2000e-2 requires protected status, an adverse employment action, and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Woods-Gaston v. Sequoyah Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2009-08-04

As the district court instructed, to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, Ms. Gaston had to show that (1) she belonged to a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the challenged action took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. E.E.O.C. v. PVNF, L.L.C., 487 F.3d 790, 800 (10th Cir. 2007). Though she satisfied the first two prongs of this test, Ms. Gaston offered no evidence to raise an inference of unlawful discrimination in order to satisfy the third prong.

For a Title VII disparate treatment claim, the prima facie assessment of job qualifications focuses on objective criteria; subjective qualifications are considered at later stages.

Nicholson v. Hyannis Air Service, Inc. · filed 2009-09-08

Because Nicholson is correct that CRM skills are a subjective qualification that cannot be considered in evaluating a plaintiffs qualifications at the first step of McDonnell Douglas, the district court erred in finding that Nicholson was not qualified.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging gender discrimination through disparate treatment to establish a prima facie case, including an adverse employment action and more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Kent v. Iowa · filed 2009-09-10(a)(1)

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

A race discrimination plaintiff relying on comparisons with other employees must show that employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment and were similarly situated in all material respects.

White v. AKDHC, LLC · filed 2009-10-02(a)(1)

Without a basis for comparison, it cannot be said that AKDHC would have interpreted the “Exclusive Service” provision in the Employment Agreement any differently in the case of an employee outside of White’s protected class, or would not have terminated such an employee for taking such payments personally. Therefore, White has failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires evidence that gender played a role in an adverse pay decision to establish a prima facie sex-discrimination claim.

Jamilik v. Yale University · filed 2009-10-08(a)

Yale’s explanations for the pay disparity are not inconsistent, and Jamilik does not present any other evidence to suggest that gender discrimination played a role in the adverse employment decision in question, as required to establish a prima facie case under Title VII.

A plaintiff alleging racial disparate treatment under Title VII must show she was qualified for the job to establish a prima facie case.

Y. Daniels v. Jefferson County Sheriff's · filed 2009-10-26(a)(1)

Thus, Daniels did not show she was qualified to do the PSD II job as required by the fourth prong of the prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2 permits a race discrimination plaintiff to establish a prima facie wrongful termination case through evidence of protected status, satisfactory performance, termination, and replacement or more favorable treatment of comparable employees outside the protected class.

Taylor v. AMCOR FLEXIBLES INC. · filed 2009-11-04

Under this analysis, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by showing that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was performing his job at a level that met his employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the employer sought someone who is not a member of the protected class to perform the same work after the plaintiffs termination, or similarly situated employees who are not members of the protected class were not subjected to the adverse action.

A sex discrimination plaintiff must show satisfactory job performance or qualifications and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination as part of a prima facie case.

Mastrolillo v. Connecticut · filed 2009-11-05(a)(1)

A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she performed the job satisfactorily or was qualified for the position, (3) an adverse employment action took place, and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. ... Here, Mastrolillo failed to allege a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

Under the indirect method of proof, a discrimination claimant must show protected status, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Patterson v. INDIANA NEWSPAPERS, INCORPORATED · filed 2009-12-08(a)(1)

Under this framework Coffey and Patterson must make a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that they (1) belong to a protected class; (2) performed their job according to the Star’s legitimate performance expectations; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) were treated less favorably compared to similarly situated employees outside of the protected class.

A discriminatory-termination claim requires evidence that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Wali v. One Source Co. · filed 2009-12-30(a)(1)

Defendants, however, argue persuasively that Wali cannot make out a prima facie case of race or color discrimination because he cannot show that his discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of such discrimination.

A Title VII sex discrimination plaintiff can establish a prima facie case through circumstances permitting a reasonable inference of discrimination, even if women took over her former duties.

Barkhoff v. Bossard North America, Inc. · filed 2010-01-28(a)(1)

Having considered the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that von Buddenbrock’s comments that Bossard should hire young men because they are easily molded, coupled with the fact that two men were hired into the Purchasing Department shortly after Barkhoff was terminated, is sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of sex discrimination for purposes of Barkhoffs prima facie case.

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff need not disprove the employer’s stated reason for firing him to establish a prima facie case.

Lake v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. · filed 2010-03-02(a)(1)

But under either formulation, Lake is not required to disprove Yellow’s reason for firing him at this stage of the analysis.

A plaintiff alleging race discrimination must make a prima facie showing that he performed his job satisfactorily and that a similarly situated employee outside his protected class received more favorable treatment.

Nelson v. Quality Food Centers Inc · filed 2010-03-02(a)(1)

Here, we conclude that Nelson fails to meet his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

An employee relying on indirect evidence of sex discrimination must show that employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment to establish a prima facie case.

Florimonte v. Scranton Laminated Label Inc. · filed 2010-03-15(a)

Florimonte failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that male employees were treated differently or more favorably than Florimonte.

A Title VII discrimination plaintiff must establish a prima facie case before the burden shifts to the employer and pretext becomes relevant.

Jolly-Castello v. Gwinnett Health System · filed 2010-04-27(a)

Because establishing a prima facie case is required before the burden shifts to the employer, and then back to Jolly-Castello to prove pretext, the arguments in her brief regarding pretext are irrelevant.

A discriminatory discharge claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that the employee was replaced by someone outside her protected class or that similarly situated employees outside the class were treated more favorably.

Pinkie Lyles v. Texas Alcohol Beverage Commission · filed 2010-05-25(a)(1)

Lyles, however, cannot prove the fourth element: that she was ... replaced by a person outside the protected class, or in the case of a disparate treatment claim, that others similarly situated, but outside the protected class, were treated more favorably.

A Title VII plaintiff ordinarily establishes a prima facie discrimination 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.

Sallis v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. · filed 2010-06-23(a)(1)

Ordinarily a plaintiff proves a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA or Title VII by demonstrating that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she met her employer’s legitimate job expectations, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) similarly situated employees outside of the protected class received more favorable treatment.

A prima facie sex discrimination claim based on a more favorably treated employee requires evidence that the other employee was outside the plaintiff’s protected class.

Neview v. D.O.C. Optics Corporation · filed 2010-06-25(a)(1)

In order to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, Neview is required to show that the other employee was male, and she has failed to do so. Accordingly, we hold that Neview has not demonstrated a prima facie claim under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff proving discrimination through circumstantial evidence to show that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class was treated more favorably.

Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. · filed 2010-06-30(a)(1)

To establish a claim of discrimination indirectly, i.e., by circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) that he was qualified for the position; and (4) that a similarly-situated employee outside the protected class or classes was treated more favorably than he.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff to show that an adverse employment action occurred under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Forsythe v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services · filed 2010-07-13(a)(1)

Here, even if Forsythe’s many transfers qualify as an adverse employment action, he has not shown that he was transferred because of his race and therefore has not established a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence to show an adverse employment action and more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Caesar White, Jr. v. Wendall Hall · filed 2010-07-29(a)(1)

White’s failure to present a prima facie case of discrimination under § 1983, as discussed above, also supports summary judgment for the defendants on his Title VII claims.

Under the indirect method, a sex discrimination claimant must offer evidence that similarly situated employees of another sex received more favorable treatment.

Keller v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration · filed 2010-08-02(a)(1)

Nor have the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of sex discrimination. ... The record contains no information about any similarly situated female employee, much less evidence that a similarly situated female employee was excused from responding to psychiatric emergencies.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a) may fail at the prima facie stage when the employee does not show he was qualified or identify a similarly situated employee treated more favorably.

Diaz v. Kaplan University · filed 2010-08-26(a)

Diaz also failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination with circumstantial evidence: he did not show he was qualified for the jobs he held, and he did not identify a similarly situated comparator who was treated more favorably.

A plaintiff can establish the qualification element of a prima facie discrimination case by showing she was qualified for the position; she need not show satisfactory job performance.

Herbert v. City of New York · filed 2010-10-08(a)(1)

But as the above-cited language from Holcomb makes clear, a plaintiff need not demonstrate “satisfactory performance of job duties” in order to make out a pñma facie case. The pñma facie showing requires only a showing that she was “qualified for the position she held.”

A Title VII plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination without showing that someone outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Young v. ST. JAMES MANAGEMENT, LLC · filed 2010-10-29(a)(1)

The law, however, does not require a plaintiff to make such a showing. ... A plaintiff need only show that the adverse employment actions occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

A sex-discrimination claim under § 2000e-2 can survive summary judgment when the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and a genuine dispute exists over whether the employer’s stated reason was pretextual.

Clayton v. Vanguard Car Rental U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2010-12-09(a)(1)

The Court finds that Clayton has established the elements of a prima-facie case of age discrimination under the ADEA and of gender discrimination under Title VII. Vanguard has offered a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for Clayton’s termination, but there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Vanguard’s proffered reason for Clayton’s termination is pretextual.

A sex discrimination plaintiff must show that someone outside her protected group replaced her or that similarly situated employees outside the group were treated differently.

Blackburn v. Shelby County · filed 2011-02-18(a)(1)

In order to satisfy the fourth prong of a prima facie claim, a plaintiff must put forth sufficient facts to show that she was replaced by a person outside her protected group or that similarly situated employees outside the protected class “were treated differently ..., not simply that plaintiffs circumstances were unique.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory intent to establish a prima facie race discrimination claim based on an adverse employment action.

Johnson v. C. WHITE & SON INC. · filed 2011-02-22(a)(1)

Thus, Johnson has failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to C. White’s alleged discriminatory intent and has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Accordingly, C. White’s motion for summary judgment as to Count One (CFEPA) and Count Two (Title VII) is granted.

A Title VII race discrimination claim based on disparate treatment requires evidence that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

Dick v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. · filed 2011-02-23(a)(1)

Even then, the mere allegation in his Complaint that he and another African-American were treated differently than Caucasian employees by itself is insufficient to survive summary judgment. Instead, Dick must “go beyond the pleadings” and support his allegation with “specific evidence” in the record.

A national origin discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a) cannot survive summary judgment when the employee fails to make out a prima facie case.

Zamora vs Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. · filed 2011-04-26(a)

The district court granted Williams-Sonoma summary judgment on the ground that Zamora failed to make out a prima facie case for any of his claims. We have carefully reviewed the record, as well as the parties’ briefs, and we reach the same conclusion, finding no genuine issues of material fact.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff alleging disparate treatment through circumstantial evidence to show she was qualified for the position.

Appel v. Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · filed 2011-06-07(a)

Many of these physical responsibilities would be impossible for Appel, who had been ordered to remain at home, in bed, for the duration of her pregnancy, rendering her unqualified for the position of Territory Manager.

A race discrimination plaintiff challenging a raise under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must show different treatment from similarly situated employees to establish a prima facie case.

Alexander v. Ohio State University College of Social Work · filed 2011-06-28(a)(1)

Alexander has failed to make out a prima facie case with respect to the 2006 raise. He has not demonstrated that he was treated differently from similarly-situated faculty.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails at the prima facie stage when the employee cannot show that workers outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

Smith v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities · filed 2011-07-01(a)(1)

But Smith fails to satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie test because he cannot demonstrate that employees outside his protected class were treated more favorably. Smith's replacement was also an Alaska Native. And in 2008 DOTPF dismissed a white male employee for a theft similar to Smith's. Because Smith cannot meet the first part of the three-part McDonnell Douglas test, we need not examine the second and third parts.

A Title VII gender discrimination claim based on circumstantial evidence requires sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case.

Burus v. The Wellpoint Companies , Inc. · filed 2011-08-08(a)(1)

The district court also properly concluded that Burus presented insufficient circumstantial evidence to establish a prima facie case of either gender or age discrimination related to her termination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination claimant to present facts supporting discriminatory animus.

Carpenter v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY STATE UNIVERSITY · filed 2011-08-10(a)(1)

Accordingly, because Plaintiff failed to set forth any facts demonstrating discriminatory animus, the Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to this claim.

A prima facie case of Title VII discrimination creates a presumption of discrimination and shifts the burden to the employer to give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.

Idemudia v. J.P. Morgan Chase · filed 2011-08-18(a)(1)

Because Idemudia has established a prima facie case, there is a presumption of discrimination, and the burden shifts to Defendants to rebut the presumption with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Idemudia.

For a race-based denial of promotion and tenure claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff must establish the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination.

Weathers v. University of North Carolina · filed 2011-09-29(a)(1)

While there is no dispute that Weathers is a member of a protected class, our review of the record leads us to conclude that Weathers failed to establish the remaining elements of a prima facie case that Defendants denied her promotion and tenure on the basis of her race.

Undisputed facts can satisfy the prima facie initial burden in a national-origin discrimination claim.

Alberti v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 2011-10-13

The uncontested material facts in this case demonstrate that Plaintiff meets the prima facie initial burden.

A prima facie race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an adverse employment action and more favorable treatment of similarly situated people outside the plaintiff’s protected class.

Atkinson v. North Jersey Developmental · filed 2011-12-01(a)(1)

We are not persuaded that Atkinson has demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination, as she has failed to show she experienced an adverse employment action or that similarly situated persons not in her protected class were treated more favorably.

Under Section 2000e-2(a)(1), a discrimination plaintiff using the indirect method must show that she met her employer’s legitimate job expectations to establish a prima facie case.

Buntin v. City of Indianapolis · filed 2011-12-07(a)(1)

For the reasons delineated below, we conclude that Buntin cannot establish a prima facie case because she clearly was not meeting her employer’s legitimate job expectations.

A prima facie race or sex discrimination claim requires evidence that similarly situated employees outside the claimant’s protected class were treated more favorably.

Clemmons v. Hawaii Medical Services Ass'n · filed 2011-12-29(a)(1)

The problem lies with the fourth prong, which requires Clemmons to show that other similarly situated employees not in the same class were treated more favorably.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discharge because of race or national origin; a discrimination claim requires circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Nurse v. Lutheran Medical Center · filed 2012-02-27(a)(1)

Drawing all inferences in plaintiffs favor, the court finds that plaintiff has not established an inference of discrimination.

A Title VII plaintiff can establish a prima facie race discrimination case with evidence of less favorable pay or treatment than employees of other races.

DeNigris v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. · filed 2012-03-09(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff has satisfied her initial, minimal burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. She is a member of a protected class and has presented evidence that she was treated and paid differently than similarly-situated individuals who were members of other racial groups when hired for the ADN Preceptor position, when transferred within HHC, and when terminated from her employment within HHC.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff to show an adverse employment action and more favorable treatment of similarly qualified employees.

Lam v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2012-04-13(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, each employee must show (1) that he/she belongs to a protected class, (2) was performing according to his/ her employer’s legitimate expectations, (3) suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) that other employees with qualifications similar to his/her own were treated more favorably.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie Title VII failure-to-hire claim by showing that the employer selected someone outside the plaintiff’s protected class, along with the other required elements.

Selvanathan v. Opportunities Industrialization Centers International · filed 2012-05-10(a)(1)

Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when he was not selected for the position. Finally, he has shown that defendant filled the position with Carson, an African-American, who was outside of plaintiffs protected class. Accordingly, plaintiff has satisfied his “not onerous” burden of making out a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse employment action under circumstances that support an inference of discrimination.

Sotomayor v. City of New York · filed 2012-05-24(a)(1)

Under Title VII, the ADEA, and § 1983, the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she is qualified for her position and was satisfactorily performing her duties; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging intentional employment discrimination to establish a prima facie case before the burden shifts to the employer to give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.

M.O.C.H.A. Society, Inc. v. City of Buffalo · filed 2012-05-30(a)(1)

Under this framework, plaintiffs must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that: (1) they are members of a protected class; (2) they were qualified for the position; (3) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A race-discrimination plaintiff can satisfy the prima facie burden with evidence that a similarly situated coworker outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Lott v. Merrill · filed 2012-06-07(a)(1)

We hold that Lott has satisfied his prima facie burden of demonstrating disparate treatment.

In a work-rule violation case under § 2000e-2(a), a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment by showing that a similarly situated employee received less severe discipline under nearly identical circumstances.

Turner v. Kansas City Southern Railway · filed 2012-06-22(a)

With regards to the decision to dismiss Turner, we conclude that the plaintiffs have met their burden to establish a prima facie case by showing that Turner received more severe discipline than a similarly situated white employee, Thomas Schmitt, under nearly identical circumstances.

After a full trial on a Title VII disparate treatment claim, the court must evaluate the evidence as a whole to decide whether discrimination occurred rather than revisit the plaintiff’s prima facie case.

Litton v. Talawanda School District · filed 2012-06-26(a)(1)

Thus, the district court was not only permitted to disregard the jury’s answer to the adverse employment action question, it was required to do so, and instead to evaluate the strength of the evidence as a whole.

A qualified applicant can establish a prima facie race discrimination case when an employer hires someone outside her protected class under circumstances that support an inference of discrimination.

Johnson v. Maestri-Murrell Property Management, LLC · filed 2012-08-15(a)(1)

Therefore, the district court should have concluded that Johnson satisfied her prima facie burden by showing that Maestri-Murrell did not hire her, an African American, for a position for which she applied and appeared to be qualified, but instead hired Cedatol, a Caucasian, under circumstances which give rise to a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination plaintiff who lacks a valid comparator to present other evidence of discrimination to establish a prima facie case.

Janet May Beal v. Convergys Corporation · filed 2012-09-14(a)

Because Beal failed to show the existence of a valid comparator in either her race discrimination or discriminatory discharge claims and does not present other evidence of discrimination, she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), an employee using the indirect method must show that her job performance met her employer’s legitimate expectations.

Matthews v. Donahoe · filed 2012-09-26(a)(1)

Although two of the Postal Service’s actions were materially adverse—the long-term suspension and termination—Matthews still cannot show that her job performance met the Postal Service’s legitimate expectations, which is an element of her indirect case.

Evidence considered together can establish a prima facie nexus between pregnancy and termination.

Wolf v. Antonio Sofo & Son Importing Co. · filed 2012-10-19(a)(1)

I conclude that, considered together, Wolfs evidence sufficiently established a nexus between her pregnancy and termination to establish her prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a prima facie showing of race discrimination when an adverse employment action occurs under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Robinson v. City of Arkansas City · filed 2012-12-14(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Robinson must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the challenged action took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. ... It is undisputed that Robinson is a member of a protected class and that the failure to classify and pay him as a labor foreman is an adverse employment action. For the same reasons explained in the Court's pretext analysis, the Court finds that the challenged action took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A plaintiff who has not established a prima facie case of race discrimination cannot require the employer to give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action.

Jerome v. Barcelo Crestline, Inc. · filed 2013-02-08(a)(1)

Although Jerome seems to argue that Crestline’s reason for not reinstating him was pretextual, insofar as Jerome did not establish his prima facie case, the burden did not shift to Crestline to advance a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment action.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of race discrimination without a comparator when circumstantial evidence permits an inference of discriminatory intent.

Jackson v. Dunn Construction Co. · filed 2013-02-21(a)(1)

These facts are sufficient to create a prima facie case even in the absence of a comparator.

A Title VII discrimination plaintiff must show that the challenged employment action occurred under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination; qualifications alone are insufficient.

Luke v. Hospital Shared Services, Inc. · filed 2013-03-20(a)(1)

She is mistaken. As the district court correctly ruled, she must also demonstrate that the challenged action took place under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff using the indirect method of proof to show that she met her employer’s legitimate job expectations and that comparable employees outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

Campbell v. Adventist Hinsdale Hospital · filed 2013-03-29(a)(1)

To avoid summary judgment under the indirect method, Campbell must submit evidence that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she met Adventist’s legitimate job expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside of her protected class received more favorable treatment.

A plaintiff alleging race-based discharge without direct evidence must show either replacement by someone outside the protected class or more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside that class.

McNeil v. Sonoco Products Company · filed 2013-05-09(a)(1)

Title VII prohibits an employer from “discharg[ing] any individual . . . because of such individual’s race [or] color. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... McNeil failed to proffer any evidence that a similarly situated employee outside of his protected class was treated more favorably and instead relied—impermissibly—on argument and the allegations in his complaint.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging racial disparate treatment to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Fife v. Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC · filed 2013-05-13(a)(1)

As a result, Plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case and RRMC is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law with respect to Plaintiffs Title VII disparate treatment claim.

An employee alleging race discrimination during a reduction in force must identify a similarly situated employee outside the protected class who was treated more favorably.

Crist Brew v. Weyerhaeuser NR Company · filed 2013-07-02(a)(1)

Because Brew has not identified a single comparator outside the protected class who was differently treated “under nearly identical circum- stances,” Lee v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 574 F.3d 253, 259 (5th Cir. 2009), he has failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

A plaintiff alleging sex discrimination must show protected-group membership, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and different treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Mudrich v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2013-07-08(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on gender, Plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he was meeting the legitimate expectations of his employer; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently.

Race and national-origin remarks made during employment and at termination can support an inference of discriminatory discharge.

O'Diah v. Yogo Oasis · filed 2013-07-22(a)(1)

Finally, the allegations of Shin’s discriminatory remarks, which were made both throughout O’Diah’s employment and at the time of his termination, are sufficient to demonstrate that O’Diah’s termination arose out of circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

Replacing a terminated employee with someone outside her protected class can satisfy the inference-of-discrimination element of a prima facie race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Smith v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2013-08-01(a)(1)

Indeed, Plaintiff has done so, in that she has demonstrated that she was replaced by someone outside of her protected class (by Keely Weber, a Caucasian) — a showing that, under the law, is sufficient to demonstrate that the adverse action occurred under circumstances that support an inference of unlawful discrimination.

A plaintiff’s protected status and termination can satisfy two elements of a prima facie race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Blackwell-Murray v. PNC Bank · filed 2013-08-08(a)(1)

In the present case, it is undisputed that Plaintiff, as an African American, is a member of a protected class and that he suffered an adverse employment action in the form of termination from employment.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in employment, but a claim fails when the alleged incidents do not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Penn-Hilbert v. Lehigh County Prison · filed 2013-09-03(a)

Upon a review of the incidents described by plaintiff, the court finds that procedural bars notwithstanding, plaintiff’s claim lacks merit because these incidents do not establish a prima facie case of discrimination against plaintiff on the basis of race.

A discrimination plaintiff can satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case by showing that someone outside the protected class replaced her or that similarly situated employees received more favorable treatment.

Mack v. John L. Wortham & Son, L.P. · filed 2013-09-05(a)(1)

Assuming arguendo Mack can show the first three prongs of the prima facie case, she has failed to show that either she was replaced by someone outside the protected class or that others similarly situated were treated more favorably.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging racial discrimination to show that an adverse employment action was connected to race, including through less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees.

Nguyen v. University of Texas Sch of Law · filed 2013-10-07(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in employment, Nguyen must establish: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position at issue; (3) she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) she was either replaced by someone outside her protected class, was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees who were not members of her protected class, or was otherwise discharged because of her race.

A plaintiff using the indirect method to prove employment discrimination must show that he met his employer’s legitimate job expectations and that similarly situated employees outside his protected class received more favorable treatment.

Tovar v. United Airlines Inc. · filed 2013-11-01(a)(1)

Fatal to his claims, Tovar cannot show that he met his employer’s legitimate job expectations or, as discussed above, that he was treated differently from similarly situated employees.

A gender discrimination plaintiff can establish a prima facie case when the evidence raises a genuine inference of discrimination.

De La Cruz v. Coastal Bend Regional Court Residential Treatment Center · filed 2013-10-21(a)(1)

Because the Court must, at the summary judgment stage, resolve doubts in favor of the non-moving party, the Court finds that De La Cruz has made out a prima facie case to support an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a racial discrimination plaintiff to show a protected status, an adverse employment action, and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Burton v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2014-01-02(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of Title VII, the plaintiff must show by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that he belongs to a protected class, and (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action (3) under circumstances leading to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

A plaintiff cannot establish the comparator element of a prima facie racial discrimination claim by showing more favorable treatment of a coworker in the same protected class.

Edwards v. Senatobia Muni School District · filed 2014-01-20(a)

Because Edwards and Wooten are both African American, Edwards cannot rely on the School District’s treatment of Wooten to establish the last element of his prima facie case.

A plaintiff relying on comparator evidence to establish race discrimination must show that the comparator was similarly situated and treated more favorably.

McClung v. Songer Steel Services, Inc. · filed 2014-02-26(a)(1)

At the summary judgment stage, the burden rests with Mr. Smiley to demonstrate both that he and his identified comparator are “similarly situated,” and that his comparator was treated more favorably.

A predominantly female workforce does not establish sex discrimination without evidence that qualified men were denied opportunities or discouraged from applying.

Besko v. New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission · filed 2014-03-11(a)(1)

Besko has not pointed to any open positions in the JJC for which qualified men applied but were not hired. Nor has he pointed to any action by the JJC that prevented or discouraged men from applying. Without such evidence, no rational fact-finder could conclude that the JJC’s predominantly female makeup was the result of gender-based discrimination.

A Title VII discrimination plaintiff must show that an adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie case.

Gorham v. Town of Trumbull Board of Education · filed 2014-03-26(a)(1)

While the plaintiff has established the first three elements of a prima facie case, he has failed to demonstrate that the circumstances under which his employment was terminated give rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a sex discrimination plaintiff to show she was qualified for her position; an objectively required physical ability test may be considered at that stage.

Webster v. City of Fairfield · filed 2014-04-29(a)(1)

Under these facts, the Court finds that Webster was not qualified to be á City of Fairfield firefighter and thus she does not meet the third prong of her prima facie case.

When an employer eliminates a job, a discriminatory discharge plaintiff may satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie case with evidence of discriminatory intent instead of a comparator.

Taylor v. Teakdecking Systems, Inc. · filed 2014-07-02(a)(1)

Under the modified prima facie analysis, rather than identifying a comparator at the fourth prong, the plaintiff may instead produce evidence from which the factfinder might reasonably conclude that the employer intended to discriminate in reaching its decision.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge through circumstantial evidence must show that someone outside the protected class replaced her or that similarly situated employees outside the class were treated more favorably.

Wilson v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. · filed 2014-09-17(a)(1)

To survive summary judgment under this framework, Wilson initially must show that she (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for the job, (3) suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) was replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently than similarly situated, nonprotected employees.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff bringing a race discrimination claim to show an adverse employment action and that someone outside the protected class replaced him or similarly situated employees received more favorable treatment.

Anderson v. Sikorsky Support Services, Inc. · filed 2014-11-05(a)

However, Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence that he suffered an adverse employment action between April 1, 2012 and June 30, 2012, or at any other time, for that matter. Plaintiff also failed to present any evidence that he was replaced by a non-African American or that other similarly-situated persons were treated more favorably. Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden on summary judgment of presenting sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, this claim is DISMISSED.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff to show circumstances supporting an inference of intentional discrimination.

Kier v. F. Lackland & Sons, LLC · filed 2014-12-17(a)(1)

A plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of race discrimination by showing that: (1) s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to attain or retain; (3) s/he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination.

A national-origin discrimination claim fails when the plaintiff does not establish a prima facie case.

Kralka v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508 · filed 2014-12-18(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on national origin, I need not address any argument that Defendant’s reason for terminating Plaintiff was pre-textual.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a discrimination plaintiff to establish an adverse employment action based on a protected characteristic.

Strong v. Grambling State University · filed 2015-03-25(a)

These documents do nothing to establish that Strong was denied a position for which he was qualified or otherwise suffered an adverse employment action solely on the basis of his gender or status as a heterosexual. As such, plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

An employee relying on indirect evidence of race or national-origin discrimination must show facts supporting an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie case under § 2000e-2(a).

Haile v. HMS Host · filed 2015-04-20(a)

Haile must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing (1) she is a member of a protected group, (2) she was meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) facts exist that give rise to an inference of discrimination.

A Title VII gender discrimination plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must show, as part of a prima facie case, replacement by someone outside the protected class or different treatment from a similarly situated employee outside the class.

Hurst v. Village of Enon · filed 2015-04-28

The undisputed record before the Court presents no evidence that either a male replaced Hurst following her termination or that a similarly situated male officer was treated differently.

A Title VII employment discrimination plaintiff must show an adverse employment action under circumstances creating an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie case.

Talwar v. Staten Island University Hospital · filed 2015-05-06

To establish a prima facie case of Title VII employment discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is a member of a protected class (2) who was qualified for the position she held, and (3) suffered an adverse employment action (4) under circumstances creating an inference of discrimination.

A race discrimination claim under Section 2000e-2’s indirect method requires evidence that the employee met the employer’s legitimate expectations and that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc. · filed 2015-06-05

Mintz has not demonstrated a prima facie case. Although he has evidence of an adverse action—the 2011 year-end evaluation that adversely impacted his bonus payment, he cannot make out the final two elements of a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discriminatory discharge, but a plaintiff must show circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie claim.

Bennett v. Windstream Communications, Inc. · filed 2015-07-09(a)(1)

We need not resolve this question here because, in any event, Ms. Bennett has not produced evidence showing that the alleged discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A race discrimination plaintiff using the indirect method must show that he met his employer’s legitimate expectations and that similarly situated employees outside his protected class received more favorable treatment.

Preddie v. Bartholomew Consolidated Scho · filed 2015-08-24(a)(1)

Mr. Preddie’s performance issues demonstrate not only that his purported comparator group is insufficient to bolster his racial discrimination claims, but also present a separate ground on which his Title VII and Section 1981 claims fail: Mr. Preddie was not meeting his employer’s le- gitimate expectations. For these reasons, we find that Mr. Preddie has not established a prima facie case of discrimina- tion under Title VII or Section 1981, and thus we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the BCSC on these claims.

A plaintiff ordinarily needs statistical evidence to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact under Title VII.

Anderson Wallace, Jr. v. Magnolia Family Svcs, L.L · filed 2015-12-22

Statistical evidence is ordinarily required in disparate impact cases. See id. at 300. Wallace did not show a prima facie case of disparate impact, and thus, summary judgment was proper.

A circumstantial race discrimination claim requires a plaintiff to show replacement by someone outside the protected class or less favorable treatment than a similarly situated person outside the class.

Hawthorne-Burdine v. Oakland University · filed 2016-01-27(a)(1)

Nowhere in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint does she allege that she was replaced by a person outside of the protected class. Plaintiff merely alleges, in a conclusory fashion, that Defendants denied her the same rights enjoyed by White individuals, Dkt. No. 4, p. 48, ¶ 260 (Pg. ID No. 104), without providing a short and plain statement regarding how the White individuals she mentioned were similarly situated to her.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a sex discrimination plaintiff to satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case when the position remains open after termination.

Davis v. Mabus · filed 2016-02-11(a)

Thus, although, the fact that the Navy did not replace Davis with a woman or a man under age 40 is strong evidence in the Navy’s favor, the fourth prong was technically satisfied because the Davis’s position remained open.

A sex discrimination plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing that similarly situated employees outside her protected group received more favorable discipline for conduct of comparable seriousness.

Jackson v. VHS Detroit Receiving Hospital · filed 2016-02-23(a)(1)

We conclude that Jackson sufficiently demonstrated that Duncan’s and Little’s actions were of “comparable seriousness” to the conduct for which Jackson was discharged to establish a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence supporting an inference that an adverse employment action occurred because of a protected characteristic.

Dickens v. Hudson Sheraton Corp. · filed 2016-03-01(a)(1)

Dickens, however, fails to satisfy the fourth element of his prima facie case, because the evidence does not suggest that any adverse employment actions occurred because of his race or age, or otherwise allow for an inference of discrimination.

A Title VII plaintiff’s prima facie showing of satisfactory job performance is less demanding than the showing required to establish pretext.

Decker v. Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. · filed 2016-03-23(a)(1)

The district court erred in holding that Barrick’s non-discriminatory reason for termination—Decker’s violation of various company policies which caused the bus accident—precluded Decker from making a prima facie showing that he was performing the job satisfactorily under the ADEA and Title VII. Specifically, the trial court misapplied the McDonnell Douglas framework by confusing the minimal showing a plaintiff must make at the prima facie stage with the more substantial showing required at the pretext stage.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory termination can establish a prima facie case by showing replacement by someone outside the protected class without identifying a similarly situated comparator.

Robinson v. EMC · filed 2016-06-02(a)(1)

The district court found that Robinson’s prima facie case failed because he did not point to a similarly situated comparator who was treated more favorably. But he did not need to because it is undisputed that Robinson was replaced by someone outside the protected class.

A plaintiff challenging selective discipline need not always show that he met his employer’s legitimate expectations to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Ismail v. Brennan · filed 2016-06-28

The district court erred in requiring Ismail to establish that he was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations.

Section 2000e-2 requires a plaintiff alleging sex discrimination without direct evidence to identify a similarly situated employee outside her protected class who received better treatment under nearly identical circumstances.

Giles v. Shaw School District · filed 2016-07-22

Therefore, Giles has not established a prima facie case of gender discrimination under either Title VII or § 1983.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits race discrimination in employment, and a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must establish a prima facie case.

Standley v. Rogers · filed 2016-08-15(a)

Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (2012). ... Standley has failed to show a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Under Section 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff using the circumstantial-evidence framework can establish the comparison element of a prima facie race-discrimination case by showing replacement by someone outside the protected class or less favorable treatment than a similarly situated person outside it.

Thaddeus D. Smith, Sr. v. Mobile Shipbuilding & Repair, Inc. · filed 2016-10-04(a)(1)

Defendants produced evidence that Smith was replaced by someone within his protected class (an African-American male), and Smith did not attempt to identify any specific similarly situated employee outside of his protected class before the district court and has not done so on appeal. Thus, Smith failed to show that he was replaced by someone outside of his protected class or received less favorable treatment than a similarly situated person outside of his protected class.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits sex discrimination in hiring; an applicant can establish a prima facie claim by showing that an employer rejected her while hiring and continued seeking applicants afterward.

Payne v. WS Services, LLC · filed 2016-10-25

Ms. Payne has met this burden. ... This is enough to establish a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2 requires a race discrimination plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework to show circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination as part of the prima facie case.

Grant v. City of Blytheville, Arkansas · filed 2016-11-14

Thus, Grant had the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of race and age discrimination, which required him to show that he was a member of a protected class, that he met the City’s legitimate employment expectations, that he suffered an adverse employment action, and that the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination based on race or age. ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Grant and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, we conclude that Grant failed to substantiate his claims of race and age discrimination with sufficient probative evidence to permit a rational trier of fact to find in his favor.

A plaintiff alleging employment discrimination under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) must show membership in a protected class, an adverse employment action, qualification for the position, and replacement by or different treatment from someone outside the protected class.

Kubik v. Central Michigan University Board of Trustees · filed 2016-11-28(a)(1)

The plaintiff does so by introducing evidence that she was: (1) a member of a protected class; (2) subject to an adverse employment action; (3) qualified for the position; and (4) was replaced by a person outside the protected class or treated differently than similarly situated nonpro-tected employees.

A race-discrimination plaintiff must show that he was qualified for the position to establish a prima facie case under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Dykes v. Marco Group, Inc. · filed 2016-11-28(a)(1)

Accordingly, we conclude that he has failed to meet his summary judgment burden of making a factual showing sufficient to establish the second prong of his prima facie case for race discrimination, i.e., that he was qualified for the welding instructor position.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires only a minimal showing of job qualification at the prima facie stage of a sex discrimination claim.

Orr v. City of Rogers · filed 2017-02-03(a)

Given this minimal burden, Orr’s many years of experience and training as a dispatcher and supervisor suffice to show that she was qualified for her position, even in light of her later-incurred infractions.

A plaintiff claiming race discrimination must offer at least minimal evidence of satisfactory job performance to establish a prima facie case at summary judgment.

Ingram v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. · filed 2017-05-03(a)(1)

We conclude that Ingram failed to meet his burden of providing minimal evidence that he was performing his job satisfactorily.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) bars race discrimination in employment; a plaintiff who identifies no similarly situated employee outside the protected class treated more favorably fails to establish a prima facie case.

Anderson v. Wade · filed 2017-06-16(a)(1)

A prima facie case requires a showing that the plaintiff (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for the position at issue, (3) was the subject of an adverse employment action, and (4) was treated less favorably than were other similarly situated employees who were not members of the protected class, under nearly identical circumstances. ... Anderson has failed to identify any similarly situated members outside his protected class who were treated more favorably than he. Because Anderson has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, summary judgment in favor of Venture was proper.

In a Title VII failure-to-promote claim, a plaintiff need not show at the prima facie stage that the selected candidate was equally or less qualified.

Voudy v. Sheriff of Broward County Florida · filed 2017-07-13(a)(1)

At least at the prima facie case stage, a plaintiff need not show that the candidate who received the promotion was equally or less qualified than the plaintiff.

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

King v. AutoZoners, LLC · filed 2017-08-23

On appeal, King argues that the district court erred by holding that she had abandoned her retaliation claim and by finding that she had not established the prima facie case for her race and ... age discrimination claims. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to AutoZone on all counts.

A plaintiff establishes a prima facie discrimination claim by showing membership in a protected class, an adverse employment action, and an inference of discrimination.

Walker v. District of Columbia · filed 2017-09-30(a)(1)

To allege a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she “is a member of a protected class,” that she “suffered an adverse employment action,” and that “the unfavorable action gives rise to an inference of discrimination.”

A plaintiff claiming race discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must establish a valid comparator or present sufficient other circumstantial evidence to make a prima facie case.

Langford v. Magnolia Advanced Materials, Inc. · filed 2017-10-03(a)(1)

Because he failed to establish a valid comparator and has abandoned the argument he presented sufficient circumstantial evidence suggesting racial discrimination, Access Now, Inc., 385 F.3d at 1330, Langford did not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff claiming discriminatory discharge based on national origin to show circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Laul v. Los Alamos National Laboratories · filed 2017-10-23(a)(1)

We conclude that summary judgment was properly entered against Laul based on his failure to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge.

A Title VII sex discrimination plaintiff must show circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination; salary statistics that do not account for individual circumstances may fail to establish a prima facie case.

Summy-Long v. Penn State University · filed 2017-11-06(a)(1)

Title VII and the PHRA prohibit an employer from discriminating against its employees on the basis of sex. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(i); 43 PA. CONS. STAT. § 955(a). ... Summy-Long fails at the prima facie stage. ... The Haignere Report relied on by Summy-Long did not establish causation for any salary disparities, analyze individualized circumstances, or explain the qualitative aspects of the faculty.

A race or sex discrimination claim based on circumstantial evidence requires a prima facie showing that the employee was replaced outside the protected class or treated differently from similarly situated employees.

Derico Golden v. Mirabile Investment Corp. · filed 2018-03-06(a)(1)

Absent a prima facie case that there was circumstantial evidence that Golden was fired because of his race and/or sex, summary judgment in favor of MIC was appropriate.