post was not necessary, and that training would take time away from fulfilling other functions within the MSB Division.
32. The plaintiff has failed to show that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's failure to get the BDT job was pretextual.
Conclusions of Law
1. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject of this action.
2. The plaintiff in a Title VII case must carry the initial burden under the statute of establishing a prima facie case of racial and gender discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973).
3. A prima facie case is made by showing (i) that the plaintiff belongs to a racial and/or a gender minority; (ii) that she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite her qualifications, the agency cancelled the position while similarly situated employees, not in her protected group, were treated more favorably.
4. If the plaintiff succeeds in proving by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employee's rejection. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207, 101 S. Ct. 1089 (1981).
5. The defendant's burden is to rebut the presumption of discrimination by producing evidence that the plaintiff was not awarded the job for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. The defendant need only articulate, through the introduction of admissible evidence, a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the plaintiff's rejection. Id.
6. If the defendant carries this burden, the plaintiff then has an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination. Id.
7. The plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case of race or sex discrimination, because she did not prove that others similarly situated but not in her protected group were treated more favorably.
8. The defendant has produced evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not placing the plaintiff in the position of Business Development Technician, and has shown that such reasons were real and not pretextual.
9. Judgment will be entered for the defendant.
AND NOW, this 10th day of February, 1987, it is hereby ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.