42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

A plaintiff alleging employment discrimination must establish a prima facie case; failure to do so defeats the claim.

Espinoza v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Transp. · filed 2018-03-30(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff's claims fail.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to show protected status, qualification, an adverse employment action, and circumstances suggesting discrimination to establish a prima facie case.

Lambert v. Trump Int'l Hotel & Tower · filed 2018-03-31(a)(1)

To set forth a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position at issue; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

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

Sherwin Wright v. Chevron Phillips Chem Co., LP · filed 2018-06-01(a)(1)

Wright does not argue that he was replaced with someone outside of his protected class. Accordingly, Wright has failed to raise a material fact issue regarding the fourth prong of his prima facie case.

A plaintiff alleging racial discrimination through circumstantial evidence must show that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably.

Bosby v. Hydratech Industries Fluid Power, Inc. · filed 2018-06-14(a)(1)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not presented evidence that similarly situated employees outside her classification were treated more favorably. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of discrimination.

When a Title VII plaintiff relies on comparators to prove discrimination, she must show they were similarly situated.

Gonzalez v. Tape Case Ltd. · filed 2018-07-25(a)

Although there are subsequent steps in the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the Court concludes that Gonzalez cannot make out a prima facie case, as she has not offered any evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that a similarly situated employee outside her protected classes was treated more favorably.

A race discrimination claim based on comparator evidence requires more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected class and an adverse employment action.

Bartell v. Fulton County, Georgia · filed 2018-10-26(a)(1)

In short, Plaintiff was not treated differently from a similarly-situated comparator by being asked to provide a transcript. Even had she been treated differently, the request for a transcript did not constitute a significant change in the conditions of her employment.

A discharged employee's tenure may satisfy the qualification element of a Title VII prima facie discrimination case by inference.

West v. AM/NS Calvert · filed 2018-10-29(a)(1)

Defendant has cited no cases that have held that this inference or presumption should not apply to Title VII discrimination cases and has offered no other explanation why Title VII race discrimination cases should be treated differently in this regard than age discrimination cases under the ADEA. Allowing the inference does not really eliminated the second prong from the requirements of a prima facie case, but rather satisfies the prong by presumption.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination plaintiff relying on a comparator to show more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected group.

Thomas v. Tregre · filed 2019-01-10(a)

Thomas has failed to create a genuine fact issue regarding the fourth prong of his racial discrimination claim. The internal investigation exonerated Bordelon, while concluding that Thomas should be “severely reprimanded” or even terminated because his “credibility ha[d] been destroyed for future court cases.” Thomas and Bordelon were thus not similarly situated when Tregre attempted to transfer Thomas.

A Title VII race discrimination claim requires an adverse employment action under circumstances that support an inference of unlawful discrimination.

Desantis v. New Jersey Transit · filed 2019-01-25(a)

Indeed, to make out a prima facie case of race discrimination, Appellant must show that the adverse employment action he suffered occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

Section 2000e-2 requires a plaintiff alleging sex discrimination under the pretext framework to establish a prima facie case; voluntarily declining a promotion without evidence of sex-based obstacles does not suffice.

Price v. Region 4 Planning and Development Council · filed 2019-04-25

Accordingly, the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

In a discriminatory termination claim, a single instance of misconduct is more relevant to the employer’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination than to the employee’s performance in the prima facie case.

Gordon v. Holy Cross Hosp. Germantown, Inc. · filed 2019-05-29(a)(1)

Rather, a single instance of misconduct is more relevant to the question of the employer's legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits adverse employment actions because of race; under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must show that she met her employer’s legitimate expectations and that similarly situated employees outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

Stephenson v. Andrabi · filed 2019-06-03(a)(1)

Under that framework, Stephenson must initially demonstrate a prima facie case of racial discrimination by establishing that (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) her job performance reasonably complied with her employer’s legitimate expectations, (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (4) similarly situated employees outside of her protected class were treated more favorably by the employer. ... Stephenson accordingly fails to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

A Title VII discriminatory-discharge plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by showing she was qualified for her position; failure to make that showing defeated the claim here.

Thomas v. Seminole Electric Cooperative Inc. · filed 2019-06-17(a)(1)

Accordingly, Thomas failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she did not show that she was qualified for her position.

A plaintiff claiming race discrimination in pay reductions must identify a similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably to establish a prima facie case.

Wyatt v. Waste Management of Texas, Inc. · filed 2019-07-29(a)(1)

Thus, Wyatt cannot meet his prima facie case as to his pay reductions claim because he has failed to identify someone similarly situated who was treated more favorably.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence supporting an inference of intentional sex discrimination; a female coworker taking over a terminated employee’s shifts alone is insufficient.

Goodrich v. Tonelli's Pizza Pub · filed 2019-08-02(a)(1)

Even if Marshall did take over plaintiff's shifts, this does not mean that she replaced him, much less give rise to an inference of sex discrimination.

For a discriminatory discharge claim, an employee must show satisfactory job performance, not merely that she was qualified when hired.

Campbell v. Bristol Community College · filed 2019-08-22(a)

But making a prima facie case requires her to show that she was performing her job well, not that she was qualified for the job at the time of her hiring.

For a race or national-origin discrimination claim, satisfactory job performance is measured at the time of the adverse employment action.

Aguero v. Board of Trustees of the Unive · filed 2019-09-13

Instead, what matters is whether Agüero was meeting her employer’s expectations as Assistant Director of the Center for Professional Responsibility in Business and Society at the time her contract was not renewed in 2016, not whether she had done so in a different position years earlier.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie inference of discriminatory termination by showing that he was qualified for the position and that the job was not eliminated.

Duran v. Metro Treatment of Colorado, LP · filed 2019-09-17(a)(1)

Given that only a de minimis showing is required to establish plaintiff’s prima facie case, the Court holds that an “inference of unlawful discrimination” may be shown, at the prima facie stage, by the plaintiff showing that he was qualified for the position and the job was not eliminated.

A race discrimination plaintiff must show that he was replaced by someone outside his protected class or treated less favorably than similarly situated employees to establish a prima facie case.

Owens v. CPS Energy · filed 2019-10-24(a)(1)

Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination because he cannot show that he was replaced by someone outside of his protected class or that he was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a gender discrimination plaintiff to show an adverse employment action that supports an inference of discrimination based on sex.

WILSON v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY · filed 2019-10-25(a)(1)

Summary judgment for Defendants is warranted on Plaintiff’s gender discrimination claim because Plaintiff did not suffer an adverse employment action giving rise to an inference of unlawful gender discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination with evidence that adverse employment action occurred under circumstances raising an inference of discrimination.

Jackson v. Stonebridge Hospitality Associates, LLC dba Homewood Suites · filed 2019-10-31(a)(1)

Thus, given Mr. Stewart’s Affidavit and Mr. Jackson’s own testimony, I find—without passing on the merits or credibility of any Party’s evidence—that Mr. Jackson adequately demonstrates a prima facie case of disparate treatment.

Pregnancy and termination satisfy the pregnancy and adverse employment action elements of a prima facie pregnancy discrimination claim.

Thao Rim v. Laboratory Management Consultants, Inc. · filed 2019-11-12(a)(1)

There is no dispute that the plaintiff was pregnant and that she suffered an adverse employment action when her employment was terminated. She therefore meets the first and third elements of her prima facie case.

A racial disparate treatment claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails when the employee cannot show satisfactory job performance or different treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Smith v. Town of Winterville · filed 2019-11-15(a)(1)

In sum, plaintiff fails to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding her job performance or the treatment of similarly situated employees outside of the protected class. As a result, plaintiff has not carried her burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment must be granted on this issue.

A race discrimination plaintiff can establish a prima facie case by showing that she was replaced by someone outside her protected class or that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably.

Richardson v. The Medical Team, Inc. · filed 2019-11-25(a)(1)

Richardson’s prima facie case fails because she fails to establish she was replaced by someone outside her class, or that other similarly situated Med Team employees were treated more favorably.

Replacement by someone outside an employee’s protected classes can satisfy the initial burden of showing an inference of discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Hamilton v. NYC Department of Education · filed 2019-11-25(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s replacement by someone outside of all of her protected classes is enough to satisfy the minimal burden for both her Title VII and ADEA claims.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a discriminatory discharge plaintiff to show circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

COLEMAN v. DELANEY'S CAPE MAY, LLC. · filed 2019-12-17(a)

The Court finds that Coleman cannot establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination against Miquon. Coleman can satisfy all of the criteria of a prima facie case of discrimination except the fourth factor—that the termination gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff relying on comparators must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

Bradford v. Jackson Parish Police Jury · filed 2019-12-20(a)

Based on these facts, Bradford has failed to make a prima facie showing that she and Maxwell were similarly situated. ... Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Bradford has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the Hospital is entitled to summary judgment on her remaining claims.

A Title VII disparate treatment plaintiff must offer admissible evidence of protected status, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and different treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.

Strickland v. State of Washington Seattle Central College · filed 2019-12-31(a)(1)

To establish such a case, Ms. Strickland must offer admissible evidence that: (1) she belonged to a class of persons protected by Title VII; (2) that she performed her job satisfactorily; (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that her employer treated her differently than a similarly-situated employee who does not belong to the same protected class as the plaintiff.

A plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence for a Title VII race discrimination claim must produce evidence that she was qualified for her position to establish a prima facie case.

Dunlap v. City of Fort Worth · filed 2020-01-08

But Dunlap has not produced any summary-judgment evidence that she was qualified for her position as a City employee. Accordingly, Dunlap cannot surpass her first hurdle of satisfying all four McDonnell Douglas factors. Thus, Dunlap’s objection that she has produced evidence to proceed on her Title VII race-based discrimination claim is OVERRULED.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a terminated employee claiming disparate treatment to show circumstances supporting an inference of intentional discrimination.

JEROME v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2020-01-13(a)(1)

After reviewing the record, we conclude that Jerome has produced no evidence that his termination occurred under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of gender discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a sex-discrimination plaintiff to make a prima facie showing with evidence that she was treated less favorably than male coworkers.

Snyder v. L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace LLC · filed 2020-02-21(a)(1)

The Court finds that Snyder has established sufficient facts making a prima facie showing that she was treated less favorably than male co-workers.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff claiming racial disparate treatment to show that she suffered an adverse employment action and was treated less favorably than someone outside her protected class.

Lott v. Oklahoma City City of · filed 2020-02-25(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on racial discrimination, Plaintiff must show: “(1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) she qualified for the position at issue, and (4) she was treated less favorably than others not in the protected class.”

A sex discrimination plaintiff relying on the McDonnell Douglas framework must show that a similarly situated employee of another sex received more favorable treatment.

Bergholz v. John Marshall Law School · filed 2020-03-05(a)(1)

Bergholz fails at the prima facie stage because he does not adduce evidence that a similarly situated woman received more favorable treatment than he did.

A plaintiff alleging race discrimination in work opportunities must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently.

Yelder v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company · filed 2020-03-06(a)(1)

For Yelder’s first claim that he received fewer deadheading and held-away opportunities, to prove the fourth element he must demonstrate that he was treated differently than similarly situated employees outside of the protected class.

A plaintiff must show an adverse employment action and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie employment discrimination case.

Benzinger v. Lukoil Pan Americas, LLC · filed 2020-03-20

Defendants instead argue that Benzinger has not demonstrated the last two elements, because she has failed to show that (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, or (4) the circumstances gave rise to an inference of discrimination. See id. at 7–12. The Court agrees.

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

Nasrallah v. Robert Half International, Inc. · filed 2020-04-14(a)(1)

The Court agrees with Defendants that Nasrallah cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

A Title VII discrimination plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework must show satisfactory job performance and more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.

Khungar v. Access Community Health Network · filed 2020-05-07(a)(1)

Even if Khungar could demonstrate that her work performance was satisfactory, she fails to identify any similarly-situated individual who received better treatment than she received—the fourth element of a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; allegations that an employer fired a Black employee while allowing a white employee with more attendance points to return to work can establish a prima facie case.

Watson v. Kelloggs Co. · filed 2020-05-26(a)(1)

Plaintiff’s Complaint contains sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because Plaintiff alleges: (1) he is black, (2) his performance was excellent, (3) his employment was terminated, and (4) a white, disabled employee was allowed to return to work even though she had accumulated 25 points.

For a Title VII race discrimination claim based on termination, a plaintiff must show that she belongs to a protected class, was qualified for her job, and was terminated as part of her prima facie case.

Hill v. Houchens Food Group, Inc. · filed 2020-05-27(a)(1)

Hill satisfies the first three elements of her prima facie case because: 1) Hill is African American; she was qualified for her job; and she was terminated.

For a race-based discharge claim supported by circumstantial evidence, an employee must show replacement outside the protected group or less favorable treatment than a similarly situated employee of another race.

Harris v. Drax Biomass Incorporated · filed 2020-06-01(a)(1)

Harris’s summary-judgment evidence does not satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case, because it does not show that he was replaced by someone outside of his protected class or was treated less favorably than a similarly situated comparator of another race.

A race or national origin discrimination plaintiff must show an adverse employment action and that similarly situated employees were treated differently.

Alabi v. Perdue · filed 2020-06-05(a)(1)

A plaintiff generally must show (1) that he is a member of a protected class based on his national origin or gender, (2) that he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that similarly situated employees were treated differently. ... Here, Alabi can make out the first and second elements but not the third.

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

McLaughlin v. City of Auburn HIlls · filed 2020-08-06(a)

First, McLaughlin has failed to satisfy her prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII because she has not identified a similarly situated City employee who was treated differently than her for the same or similar conduct.

A disparate treatment plaintiff makes a prima facie case by showing protected status, qualification, an adverse employment action, and an inference of discrimination.

Flynn v. New York State Division of Parole · filed 2009-03-06(a)(1)

A plaintiff sets forth a prima facie case by establishing that: (1) she belonged to a protected class; (2) she is qualified for the position that she held; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse employment action gave rise to an inference of discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff to allege protected class membership, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and more favorable treatment of a comparable employee outside the class.

Royster v. Brennan · filed 2020-09-02(a)(1)

To state a prima facie claim of race discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show (1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory job performance; (3) an adverse employment action; and (4) more favorable treatment of someone outside the protected class with comparable qualifications. ... Thus, the Court concludes that Royster has failed to state a claim for discrimination based on race under Title VII, and her claim will be dismissed.

A race discrimination plaintiff relying on comparator evidence must show less favorable treatment than a similarly situated employee of a different race.

Davis v. State Bank and Trust Company · filed 2020-09-30(a)

Further, to the extent Plaintiff attempts to carry her burden of establishing element four of the McDonnell Douglas framework by showing she was treated less favorably than a “similarly situated employee of a different race,” that attempt also fails.

A Title VII plaintiff meets the qualification element of a prima facie discrimination case by showing basic eligibility for the position.

Hettiarachchi v. County of Suffolk · filed 2020-09-30(a)(1)

Here, Plaintiff meets the minimal burden of showing that she was qualified for the roles she occupied in the DA’s Office.

A Title VII plaintiff who held a position for a significant period can satisfy the qualification element of a prima facie discrimination case.

KEY v. CENTRAL GEORGIA KIDNEY SPECIALISTS PC · filed 2020-10-21(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Court finds that because Key worked at CGKS for a “significant period of time,” she thus satisfies the “qualification” element of her prima facie case.

A plaintiff can establish the fourth element of a prima facie race discrimination claim by showing that someone outside her protected group replaced her.

Myles v. T P U S A - F H C S Inc · filed 2020-10-23(a)(1)

Plaintiff may also establish the fourth element of a prima facie case of discrimination by demonstrating that she was replaced by someone outside of her protected group.

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of race discrimination without identifying a similarly situated comparator.

Flowers v. Troup County, Georgia, School District · filed 2014-03-05(a)(1)

No party objects to the magistrate judge’s conclusions that Flowers established a prima facie case without providing a similarly situated comparator and that the School District Defendants articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Flowers. Neither conclusion is clearly erroneous, so they are adopted.

A Title VII failure-to-hire plaintiff can meet the prima facie qualification requirement by showing the basic skills needed for the job.

Troise v. NY · filed 2021-01-08(a)(1)

Although Plaintiff’s reference certainly casts doubt on his qualification for a position that involved “excellent computer skills,” “exceptional attention to detail” and “extensive contact with students, faculty, staff, and the public,” Plaintiff’s testimony satisfies the de minimis burden of showing he possessed the basic skills necessary for the Office Assistant 1 position.

A plaintiff relying on comparator evidence to establish a prima facie sex discrimination claim must show that similarly situated employees outside her protected class received better treatment.

Wright v. Untd Parcel Srv · filed 2021-01-22(a)(1)

This testimony comes nowhere close to showing that similarly situated employees outside Wright’s protected class were treated better than she was. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that Wright failed to make out a prima facie case in this respect as well.

A plaintiff alleging disparate treatment based on sex must show that a similarly situated employee outside her protected class was treated differently.

Thede v. Haaland · filed 2021-02-09(a)(1)

Her feelings are unsupported by any evidence that any similarly-situated male employee was treated differently. ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie case of sexual discrimination under Title VII. Count 1 is accordingly dismissed.

A plaintiff alleging race discrimination in a discharge must show that the discharge occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent.

Cardona v. Willimantic Housing Authority · filed 2021-03-05(a)(1)

The parties disagree as to the fourth prong of a prima facie case, i.e., whether Cardona has met her burden to show that “the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent.” Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 138. I agree with the Housing Authority and find that Cardona has not carried her burden to establish a prima facie race discrimination case.

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must identify a similarly situated employee outside the protected class who was treated more favorably.

Jones v. Ann Arbor Public Schools · filed 2021-03-12(a)(1)

Jones fails to meet her burden to show that there was a white probationary teaching assistant similarly situated to her in all respects. Jones cannot establish a prima facie case of race discrimination.

Redistributing a terminated employee’s duties among remaining employees does not establish that the employee was replaced for a prima facie race-discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Bui v. Milton Manufacturing, Inc. · filed 2021-03-23(a)(1)

Defendant provided evidence that Plaintiff’s tasks, where possible, were distributed among the remaining employees, (see ECF No. 17-4, PageID.278), and case law is clear that such a redistribution does not constitute a “replacement,” see Lilley, 958 F.2d at 752.

A Title VII discrimination claim requires a prima facie showing, including an adverse employment action.

Russell v. Parkview Baptist School, Inc. · filed 2021-03-25(a)(1)

“A plaintiff makes a prima facie case of discrimination by showing she ‘(1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse employment action by the employer; and (4) was replaced by someone outside her protected group or was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside the protected group.”

A race discrimination plaintiff can make a prima facie case at summary judgment through evidence of an adverse employment action and more favorable treatment outside the protected class.

Camp v. HB&G Building Products, Inc. · filed 2021-03-29(a)(1)

Based on these adverse employment actions, Camp has sufficiently established the third element of a prima facie case of race discrimination.

A plaintiff who fails to meet undisputed objective job requirements does not establish that she was qualified for her position in a Title VII discriminatory discharge claim.

Lawson v. Heartland Payment Systems, LLC · filed 2021-03-29(a)(1)

Defendant had objective criteria for employment, which plaintiff admits she did not meet. Therefore, plaintiff was not qualified for her position and it is not “more likely than not” that she was fired because of her sex; it is more likely than not that she was fired because she consistently failed to meet the general requirements of her role and the specific requirements for improvement.

A Title VII race discrimination claim requires evidence supporting an inference that the adverse employment action was motivated by race.

Fu v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. · filed 2021-04-12(a)(1)

Fu’s race discrimination claim fails because she did not present any evidence suggesting that her termination was in any way motivated by her race, as necessary to satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case.

A prima facie claim of discriminatory discharge does not require proof that employees outside the protected class received more favorable discipline.

Zhang v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka · filed 2021-04-28(a)(1)

As for the defendant’s argued fourth element of showing the plaintiff received less favorable disciplinary treatment than non-minority employees, the court will not add that element in an employment discharge prima facie case consistent with the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Services, Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1228-29 (10th Cir. 2000).

A plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework for a Title VII race discrimination claim must show protected status, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and better treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.

Morrison v. Fifth Third Bank · filed 2021-06-16(a)(1)

To make a prima facie case, Morrison must show: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she met Fifth Third’s legitimate expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) another similarly situated employee outside of her protected class received better treatment.

A plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework must show satisfactory job performance to establish a prima facie race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a).

Jones v. Arizona, State of · filed 2021-07-26(a)

Because the record, when viewed as whole, reflects poor job performance, Plaintiff has not established the second prong of his prima facie claim.

Section 2000e-2 requires a discrimination plaintiff to show protected class membership, job qualifications, an adverse employment action, and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination to allege a prima facie case.

Villella v. City of Lockport · filed 2021-08-23

To allege a prima facie case, Plaintiff must show that she is a member of a protected class (here a female), that she was qualified for her position, that she suffered an adverse employment action, and the circumstances surrounding that action give rise to an inference of discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 466-67 (2d Cir. 2001) (Docket No. 1, Compl. ¶ 51).

A disparate treatment plaintiff must show that the employee was performing according to the employer’s legitimate expectations to establish a prima facie case.

Skipps v. Wolf · filed 2021-08-27(a)(1)

Therefore, Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff to show an adverse employment action under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Carson-Johnson v. Baltimore City Police Department · filed 2021-09-02(a)

To establish a claim of disparate treatment pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff must put forth a prima facie case of discrimination alleging that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she ‘suffered an adverse employment action’; (3) her job performance was satisfactory; and (4) the adverse employment action occurred ‘under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.’” Swaso, 698 F. App’x at 747 (quoting Adams v. Tr. of Univ. of N.C.-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550, 558 (4th Cir. 2011)).

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discrimination plaintiff to show circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination; proposed comparators must have engaged in comparable conduct.

Zheng-Smith v. Nassau Health Care Corp. · filed 2021-09-09(a)(1)

We conclude that Zheng-Smith failed to establish the fourth element of a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a racial or color discrimination claimant to show protected class membership, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and different treatment of similarly qualified employees outside that class.

Woolfolk v. De Paul · filed 2021-09-23(a)

To establish racial or color discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C § 2000e-2, Plaintiff must show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he performed his job in a satisfactory manner; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) Defendant treated him differently than other employees with qualifications similar to his who did not belong to the same protected class.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging sex discrimination in job referrals to show circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination, including that similarly qualified workers received the disputed opportunities.

Bliss-Miller v. Laborers International Union of North America Local 158 · filed 2021-09-29(a)(1)

However, Bliss did not establish that Defendants continued to seek out individuals with qualifications similar to hers to fill the pipeline positions.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence of discrimination to establish a prima facie case, including satisfactory job performance and favorable treatment of comparable employees outside her protected class or replacement outside that class.

Newsome v. Center Operating Company LP · filed 2021-09-29(a)

However, Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that she performed her job satisfactorily, or that similarly situated employees of a different race, color, or sex were treated more favorably than she was, or that she was replaced by someone outside of her protected class.

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff can establish the fourth element of a prima facie race discrimination claim by identifying a similarly situated employee outside her protected class who received better treatment or showing that someone outside the class replaced her.

Shelley v. Wesleyan College · filed 2021-10-05(a)(1)

Even if we were to conclude that Shelley has not abandoned a challenge to the grant of summary judgment on her race-discrim- ination claim, we nevertheless agree with the district court that Shelley failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under McDonnell Douglas because she failed to identify a simi- larly-situated comparator or show that she was replaced with someone outside her protected class.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that the employee was treated less favorably than similarly situated workers outside the protected class or was replaced by someone outside that class.

Smith v. Summit Midstream Partners LP · filed 2021-10-13(a)(1)

But Smith’s race discrimination claim fails because he fails to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to the third and fourth requirements – that he was treated less favorably than similarly-situated Summit employees who were outside of his protected class or that he was replaced by someone who was outside of his protected class.

A Title VII race discrimination claim based on replacement fails at the prima facie stage if the plaintiff cannot show that an employee of another race actually replaced her.

Kuter v. Pediatricians of Dallas PA · filed 2021-10-18(a)(1)

Accordingly, the Court holds that Kuter has not established a prima facie case under ADEA or Title VII, entitling POD to summary judgment on these claims.

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

CAMERON-SATCHELL v. CDHA MANAGEMENT LLC · filed 2021-10-21(a)

The issue presented is whether her termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of race-based discrimination. We find no evidence meeting this standard.

A plaintiff alleging disparate treatment may establish a prima facie inference of discrimination through more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside her protected class or other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action.

Carolina v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA · filed 2021-11-17(a)(1)

At the prima facie stage, a plaintiff may show either that similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably or “other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination.”

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff who fails to meet objective qualifications for a position cannot establish the qualification element of a prima facie case.

NELSON v. VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, LLC · filed 2021-12-02(a)(1)

Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination in violation of Title VII and the PHRA because he cannot show that he was qualified for permanent hire pursuant to The July Agreement.

A Title VII sex discrimination plaintiff must show that an adverse employment action occurred under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Bart v. Golub Corp · filed 2021-12-07(a)(1)

First, the Plaintiff fails to establish a prime facie case of discrimination as the record provides neither direct evidence of gender discrimination nor circumstantial evidence from which an inference of discrimination could be drawn.

Section 2000e-2 permits a prima facie race discrimination claim without comparator evidence when other circumstances surrounding an adverse employment action support an inference of discrimination.

Vidal v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2021-12-09(a)(1)

Comparative evidence, however, is only one of two ways to satisfy the fourth factor. Here, Vidal raises a genuine dispute of material fact by showing that “other circumstances surrounding the adverse employment action give rise to an inference of discrimination.” Peterson, 358 F.3d at 603.

A race or color discrimination plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case without evidence that he met his employer’s legitimate expectations and that a similarly situated employee of a different race or color received better treatment.

Brown v. Federal Express Corporation · filed 2022-01-28(a)(1)

As with his ADEA claim, Brown fails to establish his prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas for his Title VII race and color discrimination claim because he adduces no evidence to show that he met FedEx’s legitimate expectations and identifies no similarly situated employee of a different race or color who was treated more favorably than he was.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) does not allow an employer’s asserted nondiscriminatory reason for discharge to defeat the qualification prong of a race discrimination plaintiff’s prima facie case.

Diaz v. City of Somerville · filed 2022-02-03(a)(1)

Thus, because the City invoked Diaz’s alleged misconduct in arguing that he was discharged for nondiscriminatory reasons, see Docket No. 43 at 15, this Court cannot rely on it assessing whether he satisfied the second prong of the prima facie case.

Being the only African American electrician on a project does not, by itself, support an inference of race discrimination under Title VII; the employee must also show less favorable treatment by the employer.

Mathis v. NY Conn Corp · filed 2022-02-28(a)(1)

The fact that Mathis was the only African American electrician working on the Project cannot support an inference of discrimination unless it is combined with evidence that Mathis was treated less favorably than non-African-American employees by NY-Conn, and Mathis has failed to present such evidence.

A plaintiff meets the qualification element of a prima facie employment discrimination claim by showing the basic skills needed for the job, even if she had performance issues.

Lopez v. White Plains Hospital · filed 2022-03-30(a)(1)

Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is clear that Plaintiff possessed the basic skills necessary to be considered qualified for the job despite her performance issues, which the Court will address below. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has met the minimal burden imposed by the second element.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff claiming discriminatory discharge to show a prima facie case of race discrimination; unsupported allegations of unequal treatment do not suffice.

Turner v. BNSF Railway Company · filed 2022-04-01(a)(1)

After considering the evidence, the Court finds Turner fails to make a prima facie case of discrimination.

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination without showing that a similarly situated employee received better treatment.

BROOKS v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. · filed 2022-04-08(a)(1)

Setting aside whether Haynesworth is a valid comparator, showing that a similarly situated comparator was treated more favorably than the plaintiff is only one way to make out this element of a prima facie case, not the exclusive manner of doing so.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) lets a plaintiff establish a prima facie pay discrimination claim by showing that she held a job similar to a higher-paid male employee’s.

Bandokoudis v. Entercom Kansas City, LLC · filed 2022-05-09(a)(1)

To establish her prima facie case with regard to her pay discrimination claim, Plaintiff “must show she ‘occupie[d] a job similar to that of higher paid males.’ ”19 ... Plaintiff has established her prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a qualified woman to establish a prima facie inference of sex discrimination when an employer hires a man instead.

King v. Johnson County, Kansas, Board of Commissioners · filed 2022-05-12(a)(1)

The fact that defendant hired someone outside the protected class is sufficient to establish circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

A sex discrimination plaintiff under § 2000e-2(a) can establish a prima facie case when evidence disputes the employer’s claim that it left the position unfilled.

Smith v. Siskin Steel & Supply Company, Inc. (JRG3) · filed 2022-05-25(a)

With that evidence in the record, the Court would be deciding a disputed fact if it accepted Defendant’s position, and the Court cannot rule that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case because Defendant never hired someone as the third-shift Flame Burner operator.

Employee complaints are considered separately from whether a plaintiff was qualified for her position when assessing a prima facie Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim.

Romero v. St. Vincent's Services, Inc. · filed 2022-06-10(a)(1)

The complaints, however, are considered separate from her qualifications. ... Consequently, the second element of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie analysis is also satisfied.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to support a race discrimination claim with evidence that a worker outside the protected class replaced her or received more favorable treatment.

Hatcher v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority · filed 2022-06-13(a)(1)

The Court concludes that Hatcher offers no evidence of any similarly situated, non-protected individual who either replaced her or was treated more favorably than her.

A national origin discrimination claim fails when the plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence of a prima facie case.

Ezebuihe v. Coppin State University · filed 2022-07-14(a)(1)

Even in the light most favorable to Plaintiff as the non-moving party, Plaintiff has failed to set forth a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence that she was discriminated against on the basis of national origin.

A plaintiff’s unsupported assertion that she met her employer’s expectations does not establish the satisfactory performance element of a Title VII discrimination claim.

Buhagiar v. Wells Fargo Bank NA · filed 2022-07-20(a)

A plaintiff’s bare assertion that she was meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations is not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to this prong.

A Title VII race-discrimination claimant relying on indirect evidence must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently.

Marcus v. Franklin Co. Sheriff, Dallas Baldwin · filed 2022-07-21

To establish his prima facie claim of race discrimination, Dep. Marcus must show by a preponderance of the evidence that he: 1) is a member of a protected class; 2) is qualified for the job; 3) suffered an adverse employment decision; and 4) was treated differently than similarly situated non-protected employees.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits race discrimination in employment; a plaintiff must present facts supporting an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie claim.

Deering v. Lockheed Martin Corporation · filed 2022-08-30

The remaining question, then, is whether the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination. They do not.

A sex-discrimination claim under this section requires a prima facie showing that the employee was qualified for the position.

Lewis v. Peabody Energy, Inc · filed 2022-09-15(a)(1)

Given that plaintiff fails to make a prima facie case of sex discrimination, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim.

A plaintiff alleging sex discrimination must show membership in a protected class, an adverse employment action, qualification for the position, and less favorable treatment than a similarly situated person outside the protected class.

Brunelle v. CoCo's Italian Market · filed 2022-09-15(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sex, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified for his position; and (4) he was treated less favorably than someone outside the protected class who was similarly situated.

A Title VII discrimination plaintiff must make at least a minimal evidentiary showing to establish a prima facie case.

Quintana-Dieppa v. Department of the Army · filed 2022-09-30(a)(1)

While “only a minimal evidentiary showing is necessary to satisfy an employee’s burden of production at this stage,” Torrech Hernández v. General Elec. Co., 519 F.3d 41, 49 (1st Cir. 2008), Quintana has not hit that mark here with regards to her age, sex and racial discrimination claims.

Under § 2000e-2(a), a plaintiff pursuing a race-discrimination discharge claim through the burden-shifting framework must show satisfactory job performance and circumstances suggesting unlawful discrimination.

Ajisefinni v. Clifton Larson Allen, LLP · filed 2022-11-18(a)

Ajisefinni has established the first and third elements of a prima facie discrimination claim by virtue of her race and the fact that CLA fired her. However, she fails to offer evidence from which a reasonable jury could find she has met the second element (satisfactory job performance) or the fourth element (circumstances indicating unlawful discrimination).

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff must show adequate job performance to establish a prima facie case.

Gillenwater v. D' Agostino · filed 2022-12-01

Gillenwater, therefore, fails to meet the second element of his prima facie case under both Title VII and Chapter 151B.

A plaintiff’s showing of satisfactory job performance at the prima facie stage requires only minimal proof; the employer’s evidence of poor performance is considered at the rebuttal stage.

Karthauser v. Columbia 9-1-1 Communications District · filed 2022-12-28(a)(1)

Under the circumstances of this case, C911’s evidence of unsatisfactory job performance is properly considered in C911’s rebuttal as a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its action, not before.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employment discrimination based on race or sex; allegations that qualified employees outside those classes were treated better can support a claim.

Prairie Chicken v. Becerra · filed 2022-12-29(a)(1)

Thus, he makes a prima facie showing of employment discrimination, and his claims under Title VII survive § 1915 screening.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a sex or pregnancy discrimination claim to proceed when the evidence could establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

MEIGS v. CARE PROVIDERS INSURANCE SERVICES, LLC · filed 2023-01-13(a)

Here, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, a reasonable factfinder could find that she has established a prima facie case of sex and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to establish a prima facie race discrimination case by showing protected status, an adverse employment action, qualification, and replacement by someone outside the protected class.

Cotton v. Williamson County Government · filed 2023-01-13(a)(1)

As an initial matter, the defendant’s arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the court finds that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case of discrimination.

A sex discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) may fail when the plaintiff shows neither different treatment of similarly situated employees nor other circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Sivertson v. HeartFlow, Inc. · filed 2023-01-17(a)(1)

As to the fourth prong, however, the undisputed evidence does not show that he was treated differently from similarly situated female employees or that there were other circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of sex.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) places an employer’s subjective assessment of an employee’s performance at the pretext stage, rather than the prima facie qualification stage, of a sex discrimination claim.

Law Philmon v. LINCOLN UNIVERSITY · filed 2023-01-19(a)(1)

First, the Defendant’s stance on Plaintiff’s qualifications is better suited for consideration at the pretext, not the prima facie, stage of the analysis.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a prima facie race discrimination claim when a qualified employee suffers an adverse employment action under circumstances supporting an inference of discriminatory intent.

Baker v. CT Transit · filed 2023-02-27(a)(1)

I find that Baker has carried her burden of establishing a prima facie race discrimination case.

A vacant position listing alone does not satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie discriminatory termination claim; the plaintiff must show that the employer sought to fill the position or filled it with a similarly qualified applicant outside the protected class.

Maynard v. Old Dominion University · filed 2023-02-28(a)(1)

It does not demonstrate ODU has attempted to fill the position since Plaintiff’s discharge, and does not support the fourth requirement of a prima facie case for discriminatory termination.

A Title VII discrimination plaintiff using circumstantial evidence must show that she was qualified, suffered an adverse employment action, and was replaced by or treated less favorably than someone outside her protected class.

HELTON v. THE GEO D WARTHEN BANK · filed 2023-02-28(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Ms. Helton must show: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) she was replaced by an individual outside her protected classes or was treated less favorably than a similarly-situated individual outside her protected classes.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a racial discrimination claim based on disparate treatment when an employee can show satisfactory performance, an adverse employment action, and different treatment from a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.

Cooper v. Window Rock Unified School District · filed 2023-03-10(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case for racial discrimination under McDonnell Douglas, Plaintiff must show: (1) he belongs to a class of persons protected by Title VII; (2) he performed his job satisfactorily; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the School treated him differently than a similarly situated employee who does not belong to the same protected class, i.e., who is not African American.

Comparator evidence can support an inference of discrimination under Title VII, but it is not required to establish a prima facie case.

Curran v. Bernhardt · filed 2023-03-21(a)(1)

Comparator evidence (a similarly situated employee outside the protected class who was treated differently) is one way of satisfying the fourth element of a prima facie case, but it is not the only means of establishing it.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination in employment; a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must show that an adverse action occurred under circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination.

Edwards v. Integris Health Edmond Inc · filed 2023-04-07(a)(1)

In the absence of evidence supporting that Plaintiff’s termination occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination, Plaintiff has not satisfied her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of race discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas analytical framework.

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff pursuing a race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must show satisfactory job performance and more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.

Young v. Progressive Treatment Solutions · filed 2023-04-24(a)(1)

The Court finds that Young has not demonstrated a prima facie case for race discrimination claim under Title VII and Illinois Human Rights Act. Young did not demonstrate a material dispute that he was meeting PTS’s legitimate employment expectations and that Mr. Fiedler was treated more favorably for similar policy violations.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that the employee met the employer’s legitimate performance expectations.

Reid v. DeJoy · filed 2023-05-10(a)(1)

Accordingly, Reid has failed to establish the second element of a prima facie case for race discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) bars race and national origin discrimination; a disparate treatment claim fails when the plaintiff cannot establish the required prima facie case.

Imungi v. Virginia Commonwealth University · filed 2023-05-19(a)(1)

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's discrimination claims fail as a matter of law because she cannot support the third and fourth prongs required to establish a prima facie case of race or national origin discrimination.

In a sex discrimination claim arising from a reduction in force, materially different titles, responsibilities, or tenure can make proposed male employees insufficient comparators to establish a prima facie case.

Phillips v. BOKF, NA · filed 2023-05-01(a)(1)

Given that Plaintiff does not account for differences in title, responsibilities, or tenure, the Court must conclude that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Pelton and Leatherland are sufficient comparators for purposes of the fourth element of Plaintiff’s prima facie case.

A plaintiff alleging race-based termination must show evidence of a prima facie case, such as replacement by someone outside the protected class or less favorable treatment than a similarly situated employee outside that class.

Brinson v. Summit County · filed 2023-06-20(a)(1)

Here, it is undisputed that Brinson was replaced by someone from the same protected class. ... Further, Brinson has not cited any evidence establishing that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated white employees. ... For these reasons alone, Brinson has failed to present evidence that establishes a prime facie case of unlawful termination based on his race and Summit County is entitled to judgment in its favor.

A sex discrimination plaintiff must present evidence of comparators or other circumstances supporting an inference that the employer acted because of sex.

Pekol v. BEHRING · filed 2023-07-24(a)(1)

Plaintiff has failed to establish circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination and has not made out a prima facie case.

A Title VII plaintiff relying on indirect evidence of race discrimination must show that he was qualified for the position and that a similarly situated employee outside his protected class was treated differently.

Wells v. United Parcel Service Airlines · filed 2023-08-23(a)(1)

In sum, Wells has failed to establish the second and fourth prongs of a prima facie case of discrimination. UPS is thus entitled to summary judgment on his Title VII claim.

For a race discrimination claim based on circumstantial evidence, the employee must establish protected status, qualification, an adverse employment action, and replacement by or different treatment from someone outside the protected class.

Coleman v. City of Toledo · filed 2023-09-06(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case, Plaintiff must show by preponderance of the evidence that (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) he was replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently than similarly situated, non-protected employees.

A qualified applicant establishes a prima facie Title VII race discrimination case when he is rejected and the position goes to a person of another race.

Harvey v. Greenwich · filed 2023-09-11(a)(1)

Plaintiff has met his burden of establishing a prima facie case. Plaintiff, a Caucasian man, is a member of a protected class, he applied and was qualified for the position of Commissioner, he was not hired, and the position went to Nelson, an African American woman.

A Title VII plaintiff whose position was eliminated in a reduction in force may establish a prima facie discrimination case without identifying a comparator by showing she was qualified for another position and that the employer intended to discriminate.

GRAY v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GEORGIA MILITARY COLLEGE · filed 2023-09-13(a)(1)

Gray’s failure to identify a comparator is not fatal—“in cases where a position was eliminated as part of a reduction in force, a modified prima facie formulation may apply.”

A plaintiff claiming sex discrimination under Title VII must show she was qualified for the position to establish a prima facie case.

Thomson v. Alpha Counseling & Treatment · filed 2023-09-19

Under either standard, however, the court concludes that Ms. Thomson has not made such a showing, and thus fails to establish a prima facie case as to element three.

A Title VII race discrimination claimant must show membership in a protected class, satisfactory job performance, an adverse employment action, and circumstances supporting an inference of racial discrimination.

Velez v. AutoZoners, LLC · filed 2023-09-25(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie race discrimination claim under Title VII, an employee must show 1) that he was a member of a protected class, 2) that he met the employer’s legitimate employment expectations, 3) that he suffered an adverse employment action, and 4) that the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination based on race.

A Title VII plaintiff can satisfy the qualification element of a prima facie discrimination case by showing a genuine dispute over satisfactory job performance.

Zuniga v. Gowan Milling Company LLC · filed 2023-09-26(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must show: (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably. ... As such, Plaintiff meets the second prong of her prima facie case.

A plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie discrimination claim without evidence that she performed her job satisfactorily and that the adverse action occurred under circumstances suggesting discrimination.

Reid v. The New York State Office of Children and Family Services · filed 2023-09-27(a)

The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination based on gender or race because, even with her minimal burden, she cannot demonstrate that there is a question of material fact as to (i) whether she satisfactorily performed her job duties and (ii) whether her termination occurred in circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination on the basis of her membership in a protected class.

A disparate treatment claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails when the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Wolfe v. Columbia College · filed 2023-09-29(a)(1)

Because, based on all of the evidence presented, Ms. Wolfe has not established a prima facie case of disparate treatment, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Ms. Wolfe’s Title VII disparate treatment claim.

A prima facie Title VII disparate-treatment claim requires protected status, job qualification, an adverse employment action, and more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Brooks-Joseph v. City of Seattle · filed 2023-10-05(a)(1)

In order to prove a prima facie claim of Title VII discrimination based on disparate treatment and satisfy the first step of the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff must show that: (a) she belonged to a protected class; (b) she was qualified for her job; (c) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (d) similarly situated employees not in her protected class received more favorable treatment.

A plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence of race discrimination can establish a prima facie case through less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees or other evidence indicating discriminatory intent.

Dawson v. Assured Partners · filed 2023-10-26(a)(1)

Because he did not establish that white comparators were treated differently than him, and because he did not produce “additional evidence” that indicates discriminatory intent in light of common experience, Dawson fails to state a prima facie case of race discrimination. AssuredPartners, therefore, is entitled to final judgment in its favor.

A Title VII discrimination claim based on unequal treatment requires evidence that a similarly situated person outside the plaintiff’s protected class was treated more favorably.

Lu v. Univ. of Dayton · filed 2023-11-27(a)(1)

The prima facie case is not adequately stated for this claim if Lu cannot establish that he was treated differently than a similarly situated individual outside of his protected class.

A discriminatory enforcement claim requires evidence of satisfactory job performance and more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s protected class.

Hanson-Hodge v. Kijakazi · filed 2023-12-01(a)

In sum, because Plaintiff has failed to establish that her job performance met the Defendant’s legitimate expectations, and because Plaintiff has failed to point to similarly situated individuals outside the protected class that received more favorable treatment, Plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case for discrimination under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a failure-to-hire plaintiff to show that she was qualified for the position as part of her prima facie race discrimination case.

Edrich v. Dallas College · filed 2023-12-12(a)(1)

In light of the record, the Court concludes Edrich was not qualified for the new Senior Director positions. The Court pretermits discussion of the fourth element of a prima facie race discrimination claim as unnecessary. Thus, the Court concludes Edrich has failed to make a showing of a prima facie race discrimination claim under Title VII and the TCHRA.

A plaintiff using the indirect method to prove sex discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must show satisfactory performance and more favorable treatment of a similarly situated employee of another sex.

EASTMAN v. REID HOSPITAL & HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC. · filed 2023-12-19(a)(1)

Eastman has not presented a similarly situated male who was treated more favorably; thus, she has failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

A race, color, or national origin discrimination claim requires evidence that an adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

DOR v. TD BANK · filed 2023-12-29(a)

However, the Court finds Plaintiff does not meet the fourth and final prong of a prima facie case of discrimination because the adverse employment action—Plaintiff’s termination from TD Bank—did not occur under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.

A Title VII discrimination plaintiff without direct evidence must establish a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

Parker v. Children's National Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2024-03-04

Absent direct evidence, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case pursuant to the McDonnell Douglas standard.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff relying on a replacement to establish a prima facie race discrimination claim to show that the replacement is outside the plaintiff’s race.

Rylander v. The Kroger Co. · filed 2024-03-12(a)(1)

Indeed, Kroger replaced Rylander after his termination, (Dkt. 37-8 at § 4), but Rylander has not adduced any evidence of his replacement’s race to satisfy the fourth element. Because Rylander has the initial burden of setting forth the prima facie showing of discrimination, but has failed to do so, Kroger and Allen are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Section 2000e-2(a) supports a religious discrimination claim when a bona fide religious practice conflicts with an employment requirement and results in an adverse employment action.

Taylor v. Milford Regional Medical Center · filed 2024-05-10(a)

To establish their prima facie case for religious discrimination in the workplace, Plaintiffs must show that a bona fide religious practice of theirs conflicted with an employment requirement, and it resulted in an adverse employment action. ... These facts are sufficient to establish their prima facie case because its allegations are concretely founded in their religion rather than their idiosyncratic personal beliefs.

A Title VII plaintiff establishes a prima facie discrimination case by showing protected status, qualifications, an adverse employment action, and replacement by someone outside the protected group.

Moore v. North Bolivar Consolidated School District · filed 2024-06-10(a)(1)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff must establish that she (1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse employment action by the employer; and (4) was replaced by someone outside her protected group.

A Title VII disparate treatment plaintiff can survive summary judgment on the qualification element by raising a material factual dispute about whether she was qualified for the job.

Zhang v. The Energy Authority Inc · filed 2024-06-21(a)

The Court therefore finds that Ms. Zhang raises a dispute of material fact as to this element of her prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employment discrimination plaintiff to establish a prima facie case, including circumstances that permit an inference of intentional discrimination.

Dor v. TD Bank · filed 2024-06-28(a)(1)

Consequently, we concur with the District Court’s conclusions regarding comparators and Dor’s failure to present circumstances that would give rise to an inference of discrimination.

A Title VII disparate treatment plaintiff need not show satisfactory job performance to establish a prima facie case.

Troyer v. Marathon Petroleum Company LP · filed 2024-07-15(a)(1)

Recent published Tenth Circuit cases do not require a plaintiff to establish that she was satisfactorily performing her job as an element of the prima facie case for a Title VII disparate treatment claim.

Under the indirect proof framework, a race or color discrimination plaintiff must show satisfactory job performance and more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Chapman v. Maryland Department of State Police · filed 2024-07-16(a)(1)

Because Plaintiff has failed to show that he was satisfactorily performing his job and that other employees outside of his protected classes were treated more favorably, he has failed to make out prima facie cases of discrimination based on race or color.

For a Title VII discriminatory termination claim, an interim appointee can count as the employee’s replacement when the employer intended the appointment to become permanent; a replacement in the same protected class does not satisfy the usual fourth element of a prima facie case.

Glover v. Lafayette Consolidated Government · filed 2024-07-22(a)

Thus, the Court finds it is proper to consider Griffin as Plaintiff’s replacement for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case. Because Plaintiff’s replacement was someone from the same protected class as Plaintiff, Glover fails to meet the traditional fourth element of his prima facie case.

For a race-discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a), membership in a protected class and an adverse employment action are elements of a prima facie case.

BRANNON v. KA OF CARMEL WESTFIELD LLC · filed 2024-08-13(a)

The Court agrees that Brannon has established the first and third elements of the prima facie standard for establishing discrimination on summary judgment.

A race-discrimination plaintiff without direct evidence must establish a prima facie case showing protected status, qualification, an adverse employment action, and replacement by or less favorable treatment than someone outside the protected group.

Malbrew v. A+ Charter Schools · filed 2024-08-22(a)(1)

Because the Court has determined there is no direct evidence of race-based discriminatory animus as to the Plaintiffs, each Plaintiff must make a prima facie showing under the McDonnell Douglas framework that she: “(1) is a member of a protected group; (2) was qualified for the position at issue; (3) was discharged or suffered some adverse employment action by the employer; and (4) was replaced by someone outside [her] protected group or was treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees outside the protected group.” Offord v. City of Fulshear, 861 F. App’x 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2021).

A Title VII race discrimination claim fails at the prima facie stage when the employee shows neither an adverse employment action nor more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside his race.

Hughes v. DeJoy · filed 2024-08-26

Hughes cannot show that he experienced adverse employment action. ... Even if Hughes could show an adverse employment action, he cannot show that similarly situated younger employees or employees of a different race were treated more favorably than him. ... Viewed in light most favorable to Hughes, the evidence does not establish a prima facie case of race-based or age-based discrimination.

A disparate treatment plaintiff must show that similarly situated employees outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

Grant v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund · filed 2024-09-17(a)(1)

Grant fails to show that any other TUPD officers were similarly situated. For this reason, Grant fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Under § 2000e-2(a), a race discrimination plaintiff using the McDonnell Douglas framework must show that she met her employer’s legitimate expectations.

Muhammad v. University Of Chicago · filed 2024-09-30(a)

In short, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Muhammad had met the University’s legitimate employment expectations. For that reason alone, she cannot make out a prima face case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas.

A race-discrimination claim requires facts showing satisfactory job performance and different treatment from similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Stafford v. Mandalay Bay LLC · filed 2024-11-18(a)(1)

The second and fourth elements are where he falls short: his complaint lacks factual allegations showing that he performed satisfactorily as a lifeguard and that he was treated differently than similarly situated employees.

For a disparate treatment claim under § 2000e-2, an employee need not disprove the employer’s stated reason for firing her to show she was qualified at the prima facie stage.

Gossett v. Jason's Deli · filed 2024-11-26(a)(1)

The Court believes the second approach is correct. Specifically, the burden at the prima facie stage is “not onerous” and a plaintiff is not “not required to disprove [defendant’s] reason for firing him at” the prima facie “stage of the analysis.”

A Title VII discrimination plaintiff must show that the decision-maker knew the plaintiff’s protected characteristic to establish a prima facie case.

Ahmed v. Wormuth · filed 2024-12-10

A plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie discrimination claim where “there is no showing by direct or indirect evidence that the decision-maker knew” about the plaintiff’s protected characteristics.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) allows a discrimination claim to proceed when evidence of lost training and overtime opportunities and unequal discipline could support a jury finding of adverse treatment based on race, religion, or national origin.

Muflihi v. US Steel Corp · filed 2024-12-16(a)(1)

For these reasons, Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence for his prima facie claims for race, national origin, and religious discrimination in violation of Title VII, ELCRA and § 1981.