Opinion ID: 1434460
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Pretext Instruction

Text: Lewis next argues she was entitled to an instruction advising the jury that it could find the City's explanations for the actions it took to be a pretext. Of course, the subject of pretext comes from the McDonnell-Douglas framework. But the burden-shifting apparatus provided by McDonnell-Douglas is applicable only to pretrial proceedings. Gehring v. Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 343 (7th Cir.1994). Once the judge finds that the plaintiff has made the minimum necessary demonstration (the `prima facie case') and that the defendant has produced a[ ] neutral explanation, the burden-shifting apparatus has served its purpose, and the only remaining questionthe only question the jury need answeris whether the plaintiff is a victim of intentional discrimination. Id. (emphasis in original). The exclusion of Lewis's pretext instruction did not render the final instructions inaccurate, nor did it cause confusion for the jury. Lewis was free to argue that the explanations given by the Defendants were not believable and point to the evidence showing why. We find no error with the refusal to give a pretext instruction.