Opinion ID: 790574
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting Analysis

Text: 18 Because Woodman presents no direct evidence of discriminatory treatment based on age, we review her ADEA claim under the three-step, burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), for race discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. See Roge v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 257 F.3d at 168 (applying McDonnell Douglas analysis to ADEA claim). Under this framework, a plaintiff bears the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing that (i) at the relevant time the plaintiff was a member of the protected class; (ii) the plaintiff was qualified for the job; (iii) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; and (iv) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, such as the fact that the plaintiff was replaced by someone `substantially younger.' Id. (quoting O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996)). We have characterized plaintiff's prima facie burden as minimal and  de minimis.  Zimmermann v. Assocs. First Capital Corp., 251 F.3d 376, 381 (2d Cir.2001). 19 A plaintiff's establishment of a prima facie case gives rise to a presumption of unlawful discrimination, see Roge v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 257 F.3d at 168, that shifts the burden of production to the defendant, who must proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged employment action, Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d at 91. If the defendant articulates such a reason, the presumption of discrimination drops out, Roge v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 257 F.3d at 168, and the plaintiff must prove `that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination,' id. (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000)). In short, the ultimate burden rests with the plaintiff to offer evidence sufficient to support a reasonable inference that prohibited [age] discrimination occurred. James v. N.Y. Racing Ass'n, 233 F.3d 149, 156 (2d Cir.2000); see also Schnabel v. Abramson, 232 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2000) (holding that court must examin[e] the entire record to determine whether the plaintiff could satisfy his `ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff' (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. at 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097)).