Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): normally suffice to satisfy the employer’s burden under the second element of the defense. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 807-08, 118 S.Ct. 2275, 141 L.Ed.2d 662 (1998); Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 765, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 683 (1998). In this case, defendant is entitled to rely on Faragher and Ellerth because, even though plaintiff was terminated, this termination was not the culmination of any harassment against plaintiff. “The Far-agher/Ellerth defense is available to the employer despite the fact that the employee had been discharged, where the alleged hostile work environment did not culminate in employee’s discharge, but the employee was instead fired for another reason.” Patterson v. CBS, Inc., 2000 WL 666337, * 8 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). As discussed below, plaintiff was terminated 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a plaintiff had an employment interest until the date his appointment terminated (B) holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false (C) holding that erisa preempts the texas dtpa because plaintiff relied on state law to advance his complaint that his benefits under the plan were terminated (D) holding that cbs could raise the faragherellerth defense because even though the plaintiff was sexually harassed and terminated the evidence showed that plaintiff was terminated for leaving his camera during a live broadcast (E) holding that where the employer fired the plaintiff upon a good faith belief that he sexually harassed coworkers the plaintiff could not prove pretext by challenging the harassment allegations
Output (English): holding that where the employer fired the plaintiff upon a good faith belief that he sexually harassed coworkers the plaintiff could not prove pretext by challenging the harassment allegations