Opinion ID: 201854
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Burton's Claim

Text: 31 Even under the more generous Desert Palace standard, Burton must present enough evidence to permit a finding that there was differential treatment in an employment action and that the adverse employment decision was caused at least in part by a forbidden type of bias. Hillstrom, 354 F.3d at 31; see also Desert Palace, 539 U.S. at 101, 123 S.Ct. 2148 (holding that the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice) (internal quotation marks omitted). Burton's evidence does not meet this standard. 32 Franco's derogatory remark came at the end of a testy phone conversation initiated by plaintiff. Franco delivered the news to Burton that she was fired. Burton protested and argued with the result. Franco declined to get into the issue over the phone. Importantly, the decision to terminate had already been made before the conversation took place. 33 Even if the repugnant remark was made, no evidence establishes a nexus between the termination of Burton's employment and any discrimination by the defendants. Burton was discharged, correctly or not, because a student complained, and other students confirmed, that she had hit him. There is no whiff in the record of a conspiracy to set up the plaintiff, nor would that theory be in the least bit credible on the facts here. The evidence does not permit a finding of discriminatory motivation. After all, the same set of actors to whom Burton attributes discriminatory animus were favorably disposed enough toward her to have hired her less than two weeks before her termination. Dery and Franco both interviewed Burton, and Franco's approval was necessary for her hiring. 34 Based on the record before us, there is simply not enough evidence of pre-termination animus to establish that Burton's termination is attributable even in part to a forbidden bias. We hold that the district court properly rejected the discrimination claims.