Opinion ID: 1090506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Trial Court Applied the Correct Standard

Text: Hoskins vaguely argues that the trial court employed an incorrect standard because it focused on the reasonableness of the proffered reason rather than its genuineness. Indeed, we have specified that [t]he court's focus in step 3 is not on the reasonableness of the explanation but rather its genuineness. Melbourne, 679 So.2d at 764. However, reasonableness is one factor that the court can consider in assessing genuineness. Id. at 764 n. 9. Here, the trial court did just that in finding the reason given reasonable and non-pretextual. In addition, while the trial court did not use the word genuine, the trial court did find the reason real. These words are synonymous. There is no requirement that the trial court specifically use the word genuine. See, e.g., Bowden v. State, 787 So.2d 185, 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (There are no specific words that the trial court must state to satisfy the step 3 considerations of Melbourne. ). Accordingly, we reject Hoskins's claim.