CourtCases2010

Memorandum of decision dominic j squatrito district

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: hin scope of declarant's agency powers, and thus were not admissible in other female employee's employment discrimination suit as nonhearsay statements of employer's agent, where declarant did not provide statements within her official capacity. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 801(d)(2)(D), 28 U.S.C.A. To establish prima facie case of gender discrimination under Title VII, plaintiff must prove that: (1) she was member of protected class; (2) she was qualified for position she held; (3) she suffered adverse employment action; and (4) adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to inference of discrimination. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 163 Mere fact that plaintiff was replaced by someone outside protected class will suffice for required inference of discrimination at prima facie stage of Title VII analysis. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). If plaintiff is able to establish elements of her prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII, presumption arises that employer unlawfully discriminated against her, and burden shifts to employer to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for adverse action. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Once employer has articulated legitimate non-discriminatory reason for adverse employment action, presumption dissipates and burden shifts back to plaintiff asserting Title VII discrimination claim to prove by preponderance of evidence that legitimate reasons offered by employer were not its true reasons, but were pretext for discrimination. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In order to avoid summary judgment in Title VII employment discrimination suit, plaintiff is not required to prove that prohibited motivation was sole or even principal factor in decision, or that employer's proffered reasons played no role in employment decision, but only that plaintiff's membership in protected class contr...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online