Opinion ID: 776956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The application of the Mt. Healthy analysis.

Text: 16 Alternatively, the defendants contend that the district court misapplied the Mt. Healthy framework by using a hybrid of the McDonnell Douglas pretext analysis and the mixed-motive Mt. Healthy analysis, and by inappropriately mixing in a negligence standard as well. We find no error. 17 The fact that the district court discussed pretext in its findings does not mean that it strayed from a proper application of Mt. Healthy. Evidence of pretext has a place in the Mt. Healthy analysis. Courts determining whether a plaintiff has met his burden under Mt. Healthy often look to evidence that the employer's proffered reasons for the challenged decision were pretextual. See, e.g., Soranno's Gasco, Inc., 874 F.2d at 1315-16; see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (in a discrimination case, [p]roof that the defendant's explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of [an impermissible motive], and it may be quite persuasive.). The court's reference to pretext, therefore, was consistent with a Mt. Healthy analysis. 18 We also reject the defendants' contention that the district court's employment of negligence terminology in some findings indicates that an improper, negligence standard was applied when intentional retaliation was required. The district court did not apply a negligence standard. 5 The should have known terminology used by the court is relevant only to the final prong of the Mt. Healthy analysis. Under the mixed-motive analysis of Mt. Healthy, Allen did not need to show that the actions taken against him were wrongful or inappropriate in themselves. See Soranno's Gasco, Inc., 874 F.2d at 1315-16. He was required to show only that retaliation was a motivating factor. The district court found that Penarosa and Iranon acted with a retaliatory motive. In stating that these defendants knew or should have known that their actions were inappropriate responses to Allen's conduct, the district court was not applying a negligence standard; it was merely reciting evidence that suggested that Penarosa and Iranon would not have taken these actions absent the retaliatory motive. The district court's analysis was not erroneous. 19