Opinion ID: 3010074
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The first concerns cases in which the employer

Text: offers a multi-part explanation for the challenged action. The Fuentes opinion, which the majority follows, first states that, when an employer asserts that the challenged action was taken for several reasons, the evidence must allow a factfinder reasonably to infer that each of the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reasons . . . was either a post hoc fabrication or otherwise did not actually motivate the employment action . . . . 32 F.3d at 764 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted). However, Fuentesqualifies this statement by adding that [i]f the defendant proffers a bagful of legitimate reasons, and the plaintiff manages to cast substantial doubt on a fair number of them, the plaintiff may not need to discredit the remainder. Id. at 764 n.7 (emphasis added). I am not sure what these rules mean. What is the difference between several reasons and a bagful? What is a fair number of a bagful? If the employer offers three reasons, each of which, it says, was equally important in the challenged decision, how many must the plaintiff knock down? All of them? Or will two suffice? (I assume that one would not be a fair number.) What if the employer says that reason one was the most important, counting for, say, 40%, and that reasons two and three each counted for 30%? Would it be enough for the plaintiff to refute reason one? If so, would refuting reason two by itself also suffice? Why? I don't know, and I don't think that it is possible to provide a satisfactory answer to questions of this sort within the framework of the majority's test. By contrast, these problems disappear if what I contend is the correct test is used. No matter how many reasons the employer offers and no matter what combination of reasons the plaintiff succeeds in knocking down, the dispositive question remains the same: taking into account all of the evidence in the record, including whatever inferences and deductions can rationally be drawn from the rejection of some (or all) of the employer's proffered reasons, is there enough proof to permit a rational trier of fact to find that intentional discrimination on the ground alleged was a determinative cause of the challenged action?