Opinion ID: 170828
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of McDonnell Douglas Framework

Text: Maughan first argues that he presented direct evidence of age discrimination, and so the district court erred in applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting scheme. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”). We have recognized that an employment discrimination plaintiff may prove his or her case with direct or -5- with circumstantial evidence, with the McDonnell Douglas framework coming into play where a plaintiff relies on circumstantial evidence. Adamson v. Multi Commun. Diversified Servs., Inc., 514 F.3d 1136, 1145 (10th Cir. 2008). “Direct evidence is evidence, which if believed, proves the existence of a fact in issue without inference or presumption. [It] requires proof of an existing policy which itself constitutes discrimination or oral or written statements on the part of a defendant showing a discriminatory motivation.” Hall v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 476 F.3d 847, 854-55 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 489 (2007) (quotations and citations omitted). “Our precedent makes clear that evidence is not ‘direct’ if an inference of discrimination is required.” Riggs, 497 F.3d at 1118. “A statement that can plausibly be interpreted two different ways—one discriminatory and the other benign—does not directly reflect illegal animus, and, thus, does not constitute direct evidence.” Hall, 476 F.3d at 855 (quotation omitted). Each piece of evidence that Maughan cites (Robinson’s report about the reason he did not get the QA position, his inquiry about whether Maughan planned to retire, certain notes that Lautman wrote before the termination, and an e-mail message that Hasson wrote after the termination) requires an inference of discrimination or plausibly can be interpreted in two different ways. Because this evidence is not direct evidence of discrimination, the district court did not err in proceeding under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting procedure. -6-