Opinion ID: 169640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: National O rigin D iscrimination.

Text: The NM HRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin. See N.M . Stat. Ann. § 28-1-7(A). The district court recognized that “[u]nder the M cDonnell Douglas analysis, which the Supreme Court of New M exico looks to as helpful, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of demonstrating a prima facie case of discrimination, which then shifts the burden to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.” A plt. App. at 366(2). As to M r. Chara’s claim that he was not awarded the group leader position because of his national origin, the district court assumed that he had presented a prima facie case of discrimination. Defendants presented evidence that another -6- candidate w as awarded the group leader position because she had more managerial experience and better interpersonal skills than M r. Chaara and because a panel of six Intel employees all recommended that she be awarded the job. The district court ruled that summary judgment was proper as to this part of the claim because M r. Chaara had not presented sufficient evidence that a reasonable factfinder could find that defendants’ proffered non-discriminatory reason for not making him a group leader was pretextual. The second part of M r. Chaara’s national origin discrimination claim was an allegation that defendants discriminated against him by ranking another employee in the “first cloud” and him in the “second cloud” and not promoting him from grade seven to grade eight. Employees at Intel were evidently divided into “clouds” of similarly-performing employees based on their evaluations. M r. Chaara averred that this ranking affected the employees’ entitlement to certain privileges such as bonuses and additional stock options. Defendants presented evidence that the sole employee who was ranked in the “first cloud” was placed there because he “had made a wide impact throughout Intel, was often sought out for assistance, and mentored other employees.” Id. at 368(2) (internal quotation marks omitted). They also presented evidence that a ranking and rating group of six group leaders unanimously recommended that the other employee be the sole employee in the top cloud. The rating group also made M r. Chaara the top-ranked employee in the second cloud and therefore the second-ranked -7- employee in his section. But it was the consensus of the rating group that M r. Chaara was not performing at a grade-eight performance level and should not be promoted. The district court also granted summary judgment as to this portion of the discrimination claim, holding that M r. Chaara had not presented sufficient evidence that a reasonable fact-finder could find that defendants’ proffered nondiscriminatory reason for failing to place him in the first cloud and promote him was pretextual.