Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): exists, “it may provide one of the easier cases to establish both a prima facie case and a conclusive showing that wrongful discrimination has occurred.” Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 416, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1373-74, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). Logically, in cases where the challenging party is a member of a cognizable racial group or where race is an issue in the case, a discriminatory purpose in the exercise of strikes against veniremembers of that same race is more readily apparent. See id. Therefore, although racial identity between the challenger and the excused veniremember is not required to raise a Batson challenge, the absence of such an identity can certainly impact the strength of the challenger’s prima facie case of racial discrimination. See id.; see also Bean, 816 S.W.2d at 119 (<HOLDING>). This impact is especially significant in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 (B) holding that the employers discharge of the plaintiff four months after the plaintiff filed a discrimination claim is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge (C) holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review (D) holding that a plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to show valid comparators and presented no other circumstantial evidence of discrimination (E) holding that where defendant was not african american and established only that the state exercised four out of ten peremptories to strike african american veniremembers a prima facie case of racial discrimination had not been made
Output (English): holding that a plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to show valid comparators and presented no other circumstantial evidence of discrimination