Opinion ID: 2979108
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Retaliation Determination

Text: At trial, Bayraq had the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that STDPP’s proffered reason was a pretext to hide unlawful discrimination. Johnson v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 215 F.3d 561, 573 (6th Cir. 2000). She had to show that “1) the stated reasons had no basis in fact; 2) the stated reasons were not the actual reasons; or 3) that the stated reasons were insufficient to explain the defendant’s action.” Id. Furthermore, she had to demonstrate that not only were the given reasons pretexts, but the discrimination was the real reason for the adverse action. Id. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993)). Bayraq’s argument is two-fold: 1) she argues that Steward, Ford, and Traughber offered 11 inaccurate testimony, and that their alleged legitimate reasons for the written reprimands, poor evaluations, and the removal of her supervisory duties cannot be legitimately believed, and 2) she argues that her prior evaluations and the testimony of Edmond, Barner, and Mary Logan-Jones, another STDPP employee, demonstrate a corrupt pattern and practice of retaliation by STDPP. Her first argument fails because, as already discussed, the district court did not err in its credibility or factual findings. Despite her contentions otherwise, the district court did not commit error just because it did not believe her supporting testimony. See In re Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 67 F.3d at 1205 (“Here, the testimony of different witnesses directly contradicted each other, and the district court made a necessary choice between two versions.”). Second, Bayraq’s allegations of a corrupt pattern of retaliation are of no moment because, if such a pattern exists, she was not a victim of the retaliation. We now proceed to Edmond’s appeal of the district court’s dismissal of her case at the summary judgment stage.