Opinion ID: 6536842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Standard And Scope Of Review

Text: Ross argues that the Railroad's explanation for not selecting him was pretextual. As noted earlier, we apply the three-part McDonnell Douglas test to discrimination claims based on pretext if there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent. 17 Ross and the Railroad agree that the test's first two prongs - a prima facie showing that the employee was qualified but that no member of the employee's race was hired, and the employer's offer of a legitimate business reason for not hiring the employee - have been met. The sole question for us on review is whether substantial evidence supports the Commission's determination that Ross did not satisfy the third prong by showing the offered reasons for not hiring him were a pretext for discrimination. We have noted, when applying a similarly deferential standard of review, that the deferential standard of review may result in a decision we might not have reached were we the initial decision maker. 18