The following excerpt is from Chin v. Port Auth. of New York & New Jersey, No. 10-1904-cv(L), No. 10-2031-cv(XAP) (2nd Cir. 2012):
With respect to a Title VII individual disparate treatment claim, "[w]hether judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a number of factors. Those include the strength of the plaintiff's prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer's explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports the employer's case and that properly may be considered on a motion for judgment as a matter of law." Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148-49 (2000). A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing "(1) that he belonged to a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for the position he held; (3) that he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that the adverse employment action
Page 27
occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent." Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 152 (2d Cir. 2004). An employer may then rebut this prima facie case by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reason for its conduct. See id. A plaintiff ultimately prevails if he proves that the defendant's employment decision was based in whole or in part on intentional discrimination. See id.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.