Court Opinion

ID: 9954482
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 15:00:32.22742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:56.838906
License: Public Domain

23-238
Bart v. Golub Corp.

                                In the
           United States Court of Appeals
                      For the Second Circuit

                          August Term, 2023
                             No. 23-238

                             ELAINE BART,
                           Plaintiff-Appellant,

                                    v.

                         GOLUB CORPORATION,
                          Defendant-Appellee.

 On Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District Court for
                   the District of Connecticut.

                      SUBMITTED: JANUARY 10, 2024
                       DECIDED: MARCH 26, 2024

         Before: KEARSE, LYNCH, and NARDINI, Circuit Judges.

      Plaintiff-Appellant Elaine Bart sued her former employer,
Defendant-Appellee      Golub     Corporation       (“Golub”),     for
discrimination under Title VII and state law after she was fired from
her job as a supermarket manager. Golub asserted that it fired Bart
because she violated store policy by falsifying food logs. Bart admits
the violation, but she also claims that Golub fired her because of her
gender. She testified that her direct supervisor, who was involved in
her termination, had made numerous remarks to her as recently as
two months before her termination indicating that women were
unsuited to be managers. The United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (Kari A. Dooley, District Judge) granted
summary judgment to Golub, reasoning that Bart’s admission that
Golub’s stated reason for her termination was legitimate and non-
discriminatory was dispositive of the pretext inquiry, defeating her
claims. We disagree, and reaffirm our Court’s precedent that to
survive summary judgment on a Title VII disparate treatment claim,
a plaintiff may, but need not, show at the third stage of the McDonnell
Douglas burden-shifting test that the employer’s stated justification
for its adverse action was a pretext for discrimination; a plaintiff may
also satisfy this burden by adducing evidence that even if the
employer had mixed motives, the plaintiff’s membership in a
protected class was at least one motivating factor in the employer’s
adverse action. We therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment
and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                          James V. Sabatini, Sabatini and Associates,
                          LLC, Newington, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

                          Joshua Auxier, FLB Law, PLLC, Westport,
                          CT, for Defendant-Appellee.

                                   2
WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judge:

      In this opinion, we clarify and reaffirm foundational principles

governing pretext and causation in Title VII disparate treatment

claims. Plaintiff-Appellant Elaine Bart, a female manager at Price

Chopper, a supermarket chain operated by Defendant-Appellee

Golub Corporation (“Golub”), was fired two days after she was

disciplined for falsifying food logs that are maintained for health and

safety purposes.    Golub’s stated reason for firing Bart was her

violation of store policy. Bart admits that she violated Golub’s food

log policy, but nevertheless claims that she was fired because of her

gender. Bart then testified in a deposition for this action that her

direct supervisor, who the parties agree was involved in the

termination decision, had made numerous remarks to her as recently

as two months earlier indicating that he believed that women were

unsuited to be managers.

                                     3
      The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

(Kari A. Dooley, District Judge) awarded summary judgment to

Golub, reasoning that even assuming that Bart had established a

prima facie case, her “acknowledgement that the reason provided for

her termination was factually accurate and valid under [Golub]’s

policies and procedures[] is dispositive of the pretext issue.” Bart v.

Golub Corp., No. 3:20-CV-00404 (KAD), 2023 WL 348102, at *5 (D.

Conn. Jan. 20, 2023). We disagree. To survive summary judgment on

a Title VII disparate treatment claim, a plaintiff may, but need not,

show at the third stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test

that the employer’s stated justification for its adverse action was

nothing but a pretext for discrimination; however, a plaintiff may also

satisfy this burden by adducing evidence that, even if the employer

had mixed motives, the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class

was at least one motivating factor in the employer’s adverse action.

                                  4
Bart’s testimony about her supervisor’s remarks indicating gender

bias satisfied her burden in this case, precluding summary judgment.

      We therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment and

REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.    Background

      The following facts are taken from the summary judgment

record, which includes depositions. Because this appeal arises from

a grant of summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most

favorable to Bart as the non-moving party and draw all reasonable

inferences in her favor. Reese v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 91

F.4th 582, 589 (2d Cir. 2024).

      Bart worked as a team leader managing the food service and

deli departments at Price Chopper supermarkets operated by Golub

from 2011 to 2018. Her duties included overseeing the store’s hot food

stations to ensure quality and presentation standards and compliance

with sanitation procedures and regulations, which entailed keeping

food logs.

                                  5
      In August 2016, Bart was admonished for failure to maintain

food logs, for which she admitted responsibility.         She received

another formal warning the same day for falsification of cooling logs,

which she denies.

      In the summer of 2017, Bart was transferred to the Price

Chopper in Oxford, Connecticut at the request of that location’s

manager, Damon Pappas, who became Bart’s immediate supervisor

there. Bart claims that Pappas treated her and her colleagues poorly.

He commented to Bart that one of her female coworkers was a “ding

dong” and “shouldn’t have a job,” and called another female

coworker an “idiot.” J.A. 199. Pappas also stated in front of other

employees that “he should have fired [Bart] years ago,” and that “ten-

year-olds could do [Bart’s job] better [than Bart].” Id. 201–02.

      In addition to these generally rude comments, Bart alleges that

Pappas made several remarks to her expressly indicating gender bias.

Specifically, Bart testified that Pappas remarked directly to her on at

                                   6
least three occasions that “he didn’t think women should be

managers.” Id. 209–11. She also testified that he stated in her presence

that being a manager was “too stressful” for women and that women

were “too sensitive to be managers.” Id. 217. The most recent gender-

based remark was in June 2018.

      After her transfer to the Oxford Price Chopper, Bart was

disciplined on multiple occasions. In April 2018, she was cited again

(as she had been at a prior location) for “failing to keep the logbooks

properly.” J.A. 173. A few months later, on August 16, 2018, “Pappas

formally   admonished      her   for   several   deficiencies   in   her

departments.” Id. That same day, Bart raised concerns to Karen

Bowers, a Golub HR employee, about Pappas’s poor treatment of Bart

and other employees, “which consisted of disrespectful speech and

discussing [Bart’s] job performance with other employees.” Id.

      Ten days later, on August 26, Bart was disciplined a third time

in Oxford, this time for falsifying food logs, for which she admitted

                                   7
responsibility. Bart requested a job transfer that same day, citing

Pappas’s allegedly poor treatment of her. Two days later, on August

28, Pappas documented the circumstances surrounding the August

26 incident, as well as more issues with Bart’s performance, in emails

to an HR employee. He stated that “there have been numerous

missing entries on the food service logs, out of code products in the

walk-in cooler not discarded, product put out for sale not logged on

the service logs, and product left out for sale after the allowable

selling times,” id. 178–79—errors that Bart admits. Bart was fired that

day. The parties agree that Pappas was involved in Golub’s decision

to terminate Bart’s employment.

      On September 7, 2018, Bart sought internal review of her

termination. She requested less severe discipline, noting that her

department had recently been understaffed, but she did not allege

gender discrimination at that time. When asked in her deposition

why she believed she was fired, Bart speculated it was because

                                  8
Pappas had learned that she requested a transfer and because he “had

issues with . . . [her] as a woman.” J.A. 100–01.

      Bart filed this lawsuit in March 2020, claiming that Golub

discriminated against her by firing her because of her gender, in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000(e), et seq., and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act

(“CFEPA”), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60. Golub moved for summary

judgment, arguing that Bart could not raise a genuine dispute of

material fact as to either an inference of discrimination by Golub as

required to establish a prima facie case, or that Golub’s stated reason

for her termination—her violations of Golub’s food log policy—was

pretextual.

      The district court granted the motion, reasoning that even if

Bart had established a prima facie case of discrimination, her

“acknowledgement that the reason provided for her termination was

factually accurate and valid under Defendant’s policies and

                                   9
procedures[] is dispositive of the pretext issue” as to both causes of

action. Bart, 2023 WL 348102, *5. Bart now appeals.

II.     Discussion

        The sole issue on appeal is whether Bart has adduced sufficient

evidence to satisfy her third-stage burden under McDonnell Douglas

Corp.    v.   Green after   her   employer   proffered   a   legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for her termination, 411 U.S. 792, 804

(1973). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that she has.

        We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo. Reese, 91 F.4th at 589. We “may affirm only if the record reveals

no genuine issue of material fact for trial. Summary judgment is

improper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a

verdict for a nonmoving party.” Banks v. Gen. Motors, LLC, 81 F.4th

242, 258 (2d Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted).

                                   10
      A. Causation and Pretext Under Title VII

      Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to discriminate

against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s

race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

The CFEPA prohibits the same, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60(b)(1),

and employs the same standards as Title VII, see Rossova v. Charter

Commc’ns, LLC, 211 Conn. App. 676, 684–85 (2022). We accordingly

analyze these claims together under the relevant Title VII standards.

      To succeed on a Title VII disparate treatment claim, a plaintiff

must prove “discrimination either by direct evidence of intent to

discriminate”    or,   more   commonly,      by   “‘indirectly showing

circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.’” Banks,

81 F.4th at 270 (quoting Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801

F.3d 72, 87 (2d Cir. 2015)). As is well documented in this Court’s case

law, “[w]here an employer has acted with discriminatory intent,

                                    11
direct evidence of that intent will only rarely be available.” Holcomb

v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130, 137 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Vega, 801 F.3d at

86 (“[T]he court must be mindful of the ‘elusive’ nature of intentional

discrimination.”). Circumstantial evidence is often the sole avenue

available to most plaintiffs to prove discrimination.

       When only circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent is

available, courts use the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting

framework to assess whether the plaintiff has shown sufficient

evidence of discrimination to survive summary judgment. Banks, 81

F.4th at 270; Porter v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Med. Ctr., 92 F.4th 129, 149

(2d Cir. 2024) (“The shifting burdens of proof set forth in McDonnell

Douglas are designed to assure that the plaintiff [has her] day in court

despite the unavailability of direct evidence.” (quoting Trans World

Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985) (emphases added in

Porter)).

                                    12
      A plaintiff’s first step under McDonnell Douglas is to establish a

prima facie case of discrimination by showing that “(1) she is a

member of a protected class; (2) she is qualified for her position;

(3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the

circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.” Banks,

81 F.4th at 270 (quoting Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 42

(2d Cir. 2000)). The burden at this stage “is not onerous.” Id. (quoting

Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981)). Once the

plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the

employer to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason”

for its adverse action.    Vega, 801 F.3d at 83 (quoting McDonnell

Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802). Upon that showing, the burden then shifts

back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s stated reason was

pretext for discrimination. Id.; Banks, 81 F.4th at 270–71.

      However—as is crucial in this case—while a plaintiff may

satisfy the third-stage burden under McDonnell Douglas by showing

                                   13
that the employer’s stated reason was false and just a pretext, or cover,

for a discriminatory intent, a plaintiff is not required to demonstrate

the falsity of the employer’s proffered reason. Henry v. Wyeth Pharms.,

Inc., 616 F.3d 134, 156 (2d Cir. 2010) (“A plaintiff has no obligation to

prove that the employer’s innocent explanation is dishonest, in the

sense of intentionally furnishing a justification known to be false.”).

Instead, “a Title VII plaintiff can prevail by proving that an

impermissible factor was a motivating factor, without proving that the

employer’s proffered explanation was not some part of the

employer’s motivation.” Fields v. N.Y. State Off. of Mental Retardation

& Developmental Disabilities, 115 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir. 1997) (emphasis

added) (internal quotation marks omitted); Cronin v. Aetna Life Ins.

Co., 46 F.3d 196, 203 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[T]he plaintiff is not required to

show that the employer’s proffered reasons were false or played no

role in the employment decision, but only that they were not the only

reasons and that the prohibited factor was at least one of the

                                   14
motivating factors.” (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks

omitted)).    A plaintiff may rely on other evidence that an

impermissible criterion was a motivating factor in the employer’s

decision to take the adverse action.

      To understand why, it is helpful to trace the development of the

plaintiff’s causal burden in Title VII disparate treatment cases. In

1964, Congress enacted Title VII, which prohibits discrimination

“because of” a plaintiff’s membership in a protected class. 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-2(a)(1). As the Supreme Court has observed, “the ordinary

meaning of ‘because of’ is ‘by reason of’ or ‘on account of.’” Univ. of

Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 350 (2013) (quoting Gross v.

FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 176 (2009)). Such language suggests

a “but-for” standard of causation. See Gross, 557 U.S. at 176. But-for

causation “is established whenever a particular outcome would not

have happened ‘but for’ the purported cause.” Bostock v. Clayton

County, 590 U.S. 644, 656 (2020).

                                    15
      In 1973, the Supreme Court developed the now-familiar three-

stage burden-shifting framework under McDonnell Douglas to govern

the allocation of proof between the parties at summary judgment in a

Title VII disparate treatment claim where the plaintiff does not

possess direct evidence of intentional discrimination by the employer.

See 411 U.S. at 800–07. This framework was used by courts in all Title

VII disparate treatment cases until 1989, when the Supreme Court

decided Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

      In Price Waterhouse, a plurality of the Court clarified the causal

burden under Title VII: “[an employee’s membership in a protected

class] must be irrelevant to employment decisions. To construe the

words    ‘because   of’   as   colloquial   shorthand       for   ‘but-for

causation’ . . . is to misunderstand them.” Id. at 240. The plurality

reasoned that “the words ‘because of’ do not mean ‘solely because of’”

and “Title VII meant to condemn even those decisions based on a

mixture of legitimate and illegitimate considerations.” Id. at 241

                                  16
(footnote omitted). Accordingly, “[w]hen . . . an employer considers

both [an impermissible factor] and legitimate factors at the time of

making a decision, that decision was ‘because of’ [the impermissible

factor] and the other, legitimate considerations—even if we may say

later, in the context of litigation, that the decision would have been

the same if [the impermissible factor] had not been taken into

account.” Id.

      To implement this new understanding of causation under Title

VII, the plurality articulated a new allocation of proof to be applied in

so-called “mixed motives” cases, as compared to so-called “single-

motive” or “pretext” cases analyzed under the preexisting McDonnell

Douglas framework: “once a plaintiff in a Title VII case shows that [an

impermissible factor] played a motivating part in an employment

decision, the defendant may avoid a finding of liability only by

proving that it would have made the same decision even if it had not

allowed [the impermissible factor] to play such a role.” Id. at 244–45.

                                   17
This new test effectively shifted the ultimate burden of persuasion to

the employer once the plaintiff produced evidence that an

impermissible consideration was a motivating factor in the adverse

action.    The plurality justified this new proof regime by

acknowledging that “[w]here a decision was the product of a mixture

of legitimate and illegitimate motives, . . . it simply makes no sense to

ask whether the legitimate reason was the true reason” for the

decision, which was essentially the inquiry at the third stage of the

original formulation of the McDonnell Douglas test. Id. at 247 (internal

quotation marks omitted). Courts accordingly began to treat single-

motive and mixed-motives cases differently, analyzing the former

under McDonnell Douglas and the latter under Price Waterhouse. See

Robert Belton, Mixed-Motive Cases in Employment Discrimination Law

Revisited: A Brief Updated View of the Swamp, 51 Mercer L. Rev. 651, 657

(2000).

                                   18
       But the Price Waterhouse regime was not long for this world, as

in 1991, Congress supplanted it by amending Title VII to include a

motivating-factor causation standard. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.,

511 U.S. 244, 250–51 (1994). As relevant here, the 1991 amendments

added the following provision              to   § 2000e-2:    “an    unlawful

employment practice is established when the complaining party

demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a

motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other

factors also motivated the practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). 1 That

provision statutorily codified the Price Waterhouse plurality’s broader

reading of “because of” as corresponding to a less onerous

motivating-factor causation standard. See Bostock, 590 U.S. at 657

(“Congress . . . supplement[ed] Title VII in 1991 to allow a plaintiff to

prevail merely by showing that a protected trait . . . was a ‘motivating

       1The CFEPA also requires only that an impermissible consideration was a
motivating factor of the adverse action. Wallace v. Caring Sols., LLC, 213 Conn.
App. 605, 626 (2022).

                                      19
factor’ in a defendant’s challenged employment practice. Under this

more forgiving standard, liability can sometimes follow even if [the

impermissible consideration] wasn't a but-for cause of the employer’s

challenged decision.” (internal citations omitted)).    Congress also

defined the term “demonstrate” to encompass both the burden of

production and the burden of persuasion, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(m),

effectively overturning Price Waterhouse insofar as it held that the

defendant-employer ever carries the burden of persuasion in a Title

VII disparate treatment case. It also abrogated Price Waterhouse to the

extent that the case allowed a defendant-employer to evade liability

if it established the “same-decision” defense (that it would have taken

the same adverse action even if it had not accounted for the

impermissible factor); Congress instead limited only the scope of

remedies available to a plaintiff proceeding under a mixed-motives

theory if the defendant-employer establishes such an affirmative

defense after the liability phase:

                                     20
      [o]n a claim in which an individual proves a violation
      under section 2000e-2(m) of this title and a respondent
      demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the
      same action in the absence of the impermissible
      motivating factor, the court—
          (i)    may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief
                 (except as provided in clause (ii)), and
                 attorney’s fees and costs demonstrated to be
                 directly attributable only to the pursuit of a
                 claim under section 2000e-2(m) of this title; and
          (ii)   shall not award damages or issue an order
                 requiring any admission, reinstatement, hiring,
                 promotion, or payment, described in
                 subparagraph (A).

Id. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B).

      After the 1991 amendments, it became unclear whether mixed-

motives cases should be analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas

framework, a modified Price Waterhouse framework, or something

else. See William R. Corbett, McDonnell Douglas, 1973–2003: May You

Rest in Peace?, 6 U. Pa. J. Labor & Employment Law 199, 204–05 (2003).

As identified in Price Waterhouse, it makes little sense to analyze a

mixed-motives case under the original formulation of McDonnell

Douglas, given that its third step was worded in a way that

                                   21
presupposed that employers had only a single motive for their

employment decisions.       See Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 247.

Although Price Waterhouse suggested that mixed-motives cases

should be analyzed under a different framework, nothing in the 1991

amendments blessed this distinction between single-motive and

mixed-motives cases.

      Nevertheless, the chasm between mixed-motives and single-

motive cases persisted, primarily due to Justice O’Connor’s arguably

controlling concurrence in Price Waterhouse, which was often followed

even after the 1991 amendments.         In her concurrence, Justice

O’Connor opined that in mixed-motives cases, “in order to justify

shifting the burden on the issue of causation to the defendant, a

disparate treatment plaintiff must show by direct evidence that an

illegitimate criterion was a substantial factor in the decision.” Price

Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 276 (O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment)

(emphasis added). Amidst the confusion created by the interaction

                                  22
between Price Waterhouse and McDonnell Douglas after the 1991

amendments, courts clung to this easy-to-apply distinction, primarily

differentiating single-motive and mixed-motives cases based on

whether the plaintiff possessed direct or circumstantial evidence of

discrimination, applying Price Waterhouse to the former and

McDonnell Douglas to the latter. See Corbett, supra, at 204–05 (“Courts

seized upon the distinction made by Justice O’Connor in her

concurrence: cases involving direct evidence were analyzed under

mixed-motives, and cases involving circumstantial evidence were

analyzed under the pretext framework.”); Belton, supra, at 657–58.

      This Court also seemingly adhered to this rigid distinction by

applying different standards in mixed-motives and single-motive

cases early in the wake of Price Waterhouse and the 1991 amendments.

See, e.g., Tyler v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 958 F.2d 1176, 1180–81 (2d Cir.

1992) (“Employment discrimination cases . . . brought under [T]itle

VII . . . are frequently said to fall within one of two categories:

                                   23
‘pretext’ cases and ‘mixed-motives’ cases.”); de la Cruz v. N.Y. City

Hum. Res. Admin. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 82 F.3d 16, 20, 23 (2d Cir. 1996)

(“Appellant asserts both a ‘pretext’ claim and a ‘mixed motives’

claim. . . . In a ‘mixed motives’ case, a plaintiff must initially proffer

evidence that an impermissible criterion was in fact a ‘motivating’ or

‘substantial’ factor in the employment decision,” as opposed to using

the McDonnell Douglas framework); Raskin v. Wyatt Co., 125 F.3d 55,

60 (2d Cir. 1997) (“In mixed-motive cases, we use the different

analysis set out in Price Waterhouse. . . .”); Bickerstaff v. Vassar Coll., 196

F.3d 435, 445 (2d Cir. 1999), as amended on denial of reh’g (Dec. 22, 1999)

(“Title VII suits fall into two basic categories: ‘single issue motivation’

and ‘dual issue motivation’ cases.”).

       But over time, this distinction seemed to fall away,

precipitously so after the Supreme Court decided Desert Palace, Inc. v.

Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003). There, the Court held that direct evidence is

not required to obtain a mixed-motives jury instruction under Title

                                      24
VII, id. at 92; see Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 141 n.3, removing any fissure

between single-motive and mixed-motives cases based on direct

versus circumstantial evidence. Since Desert Palace, this Court has

consistently applied McDonnell Douglas at the summary judgment

stage in both single-motive and mixed-motives cases.           As we

explained in 2015,

      once a Title VII claimant raises a prima facie case of
      discrimination and the employer offers a legitimate
      explanation, the court considers whether a reasonable
      jury could conclude that the employer’s decision was
      motivated, in whole or in part, by discrimination. The
      plaintiff can survive summary judgment by showing that
      the employer’s stated reason for the adverse
      employment action is entirely pretextual, or that the
      employer had mixed motives, one of which was the
      desire to discriminate.

Ya-Chen Chen v. City Univ. of N.Y., 805 F.3d 59, 76 n.13 (2d Cir. 2015)

(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also, e.g.,

Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 141–42 (utilizing the general contours of the

McDonnell Douglas framework to analyze a mixed-motives claim).

                                  25
      In other words, when confronting mixed-motives and single-

motive cases, our solution has been to offer two slightly different

descriptions of how each type fits with the plaintiff’s burden at the

third stage of McDonnell Douglas. We have explained that a plaintiff

may make either a traditional showing of “pretext”—i.e., that the

employer’s stated reason was false, and that the sole actual reason

was discrimination—or a showing that even if the employer’s reason

is true, discrimination was still a motivating factor in the employment

decision. Thus, in Holcomb v. Iona College, we utilized the McDonnell

Douglas framework to analyze a mixed-motives claim, but

“stress[ed] . . . that a plaintiff who . . . claims that the employer acted

with mixed motives is not required to prove that the employer’s stated

reason was a pretext.” 521 F.3d at 141–42. Instead, at the last step of

McDonnell Douglas, we held that “[a] plaintiff alleging that an

employment decision was motivated both by legitimate and

illegitimate reasons may establish that the ‘impermissible factor was

                                    26
a motivating factor, without proving that the employer’s proffered

explanation was not some part of the employer’s motivation.’” Id. at

142 (quoting Fields, 115 F.3d at 120). Likewise, in Naumovski v. Norris,

we distinguished between the causal burdens in a Title VII disparate

treatment claim versus a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which applies

a but-for causation standard:

      at the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, a
      plaintiff asserting a § 1983 claim bears a higher burden in
      establishing      that    the    employer’s     alternative,
      nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment
      action is “pretextual.” To establish “pretext” under Title
      VII, a plaintiff need only establish that discrimination
      played a role in an adverse employment decision. In
      other words, a Title VII plaintiff need only prove that the
      employer’s stated non-discriminatory reason was not the
      exclusive reason for the adverse employment action.

934 F.3d 200, 214 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and

footnotes omitted).    In Henry v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., we

recognized that a plaintiff satisfies the “pretext” requirement of

McDonnell Douglas when he or she “prove[s] that discrimination

played a role in motivating the adverse action taken against the

                                  27
plaintiff.” 616 F.3d at 157. And in Walsh v. New York City Housing

Authority, we analyzed a plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim under

McDonnell Douglas where she admitted that she lacked experience in

the role to which she applied, which the employer identified as its

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring her, but

nevertheless claimed that her gender was also a motivating factor in

that decision. 828 F.3d 70, 74–80 (2d Cir. 2016).

       These cases suggest that instead of applying different tests to

mixed-motives and single-motive disparate treatment cases, we

apply McDonnell Douglas to both types of cases, with the inquiry being

articulated slightly differently in mixed-motives cases only at the

third step, and even then, only to distinguish clearly between the

factual theories of liability offered by the plaintiff. 2 The Fifth Circuit

seems to follow a similar approach:

       2 This is not to say that every distinction between single-motive and mixed-
motives cases has fallen away. The difference is still relevant to jury instructions,
see Desert Palace, 539 U.S. at 98–101, and, of course, an employer in a mixed-motives

                                         28
        [o]ur holding today . . . represents a merging of the
        McDonnell Douglas and Price Waterhouse approaches.
        Under this integrated approach, called, for simplicity, the
        modified McDonnell Douglas approach: the plaintiff must
        still demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination; the
        defendant then must articulate a legitimate, non-
        discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate the
        plaintiff; and, if the defendant meets its burden of
        production, the plaintiff must then offer sufficient
        evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact either
        (1) that the defendant’s reason is not true, but is instead
        a pretext for discrimination (pretext alternative); or
        (2) that the defendant’s reason, while true, is only one of
        the reasons for its conduct, and another motivating factor
        is the plaintiff’s protected characteristic (mixed-motives
        alternative).

Rachid v. Jack In The Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2004) (internal

quotation marks and alteration marks omitted). 3

case has the same-decision defense available to it to limit the plaintiff’s remedies,
see Holcomb, 521 F.3d at 142 n.4. Our point is only that the differences between
those types of cases are irrelevant at the summary judgment stage.
        3  Other courts of appeals have also acknowledged the viability of a so-
called “modified” or “integrated” McDonnell Douglas approach for mixed-motives
cases. See Tysinger v. Police Dep't of City of Zanesville, 463 F.3d 569, 577–78 (6th Cir.
2006) (“Desert Palace . . . does not purport to alter application of the McDonnell
Douglas framework to pretrial analysis of discrimination claims based on
circumstantial evidence at the summary judgment stage [in mixed-motives
cases]. . . . [W]hether the evidence is evaluated in terms of prima facie case
elements, pretext requirements, or a mixed motive analysis apart from the
McDonnell Douglas framework, it is abundantly clear, in any event, that [the]

                                           29
       That long canvass of legal history brings us to present day. We

take this opportunity to demystify the third-stage burden under

McDonnell Douglas, which has admittedly not always been articulated

in our case law with the utmost clarity, as demonstrated above. This

understandable confusion is only compounded by the consistency

with which courts continue to refer to this step for convenience

plaintiff . . . bears the ultimate burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the
evidence that . . . discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the [adverse
employment] decision . . . .”); see also Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205, 214–15 (3d
Cir. 2008) (acknowledging that “[t]he McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting
framework does not apply in a mixed-motive case in the way it does in a pretext
case because the issue in a mixed-motive case is not whether discrimination played
the dispositive role but merely whether it played ‘a motivating part’ in an
employment decision,” but nevertheless “hold[ing] . . . that a mixed-motive
plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of a Title VII employment
discrimination claim if there is unchallenged objective evidence that s/he did not
possess the minimal qualifications for the position plaintiff sought to obtain or
retain,” a requirement under the first step of McDonnell Douglas); Chadwick v.
WellPoint, Inc., 561 F.3d 38, 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (“[The plaintiff] presses her claim
under two separate, though related, theories. She puts forth a ‘mixed motives’
claim . . . . and a traditional discrimination claim under the familiar McDonnell
Douglas burden shifting scheme. Our decision here, however, is not dependent on
analyzing [the plaintiff’s] claim under each of these theories, because under both
approaches, plaintiffs must present enough evidence to permit a finding that there
was differential treatment in an employment action and that the adverse
employment decision was caused at least in part by a forbidden type of bias.”
(internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted)).

                                        30
simply as the “pretext” stage, even in mixed-motives cases. Indeed,

as we have previously recognized,

      courts often speak of the obligation on the plaintiff to
      prove that the employer’s explanation is a “pretext for
      discrimination.” We believe this is . . . a shorthand for
      the more complex concept that, regardless of whether the
      employer’s explanation also furnished part of the reason
      for the adverse action, the adverse action was motivated
      in part by discrimination . . . .

Henry, 616 F.3d at 156. It becomes clear through analysis of our case

law that referring to this third step as the “pretext” stage in mixed-

motives cases is only a partial description of the proper inquiry, as a

Title VII plaintiff need not prove that the employer’s stated reason

was false. A plaintiff instead need only show that the employer’s

stated reason—even if true or factually accurate—was not the “real

reason,” in the sense that it was not the entire reason due to a

coexisting impermissible consideration. See id. at 157 (observing that

“inaccuracy or incompleteness resulting from the [employer’s] failure

to include the fact of the discriminatory motivation” in its stated

reason is “pretext”). While we use “pretext” as shorthand, we have

                                  31
explained that a more complete characterization of a plaintiff’s third-

stage burden in mixed-motives cases is to produce “admissible

evidence . . . show[ing] circumstances that would be sufficient to

permit a rational finder of fact to infer that the defendant’s

employment decision was more likely than not based in whole or in

part on discrimination.” Walsh, 828 F.3d at 75 (quoting Feingold v. New

York, 366 F.3d 138, 152 (2d Cir. 2004)).

      Relatedly, we have recognized that “[t]hough the plaintiff’s

ultimate burden may be carried by the presentation of additional

evidence showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is

unworthy of credence, it may often be carried by reliance on the

evidence comprising the prima facie case, without more,” if that

evidence is independently sufficient under step three of McDonnell

Douglas. Cronin, 46 F.3d at 203 (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted). In such cases, “the conflict between the plaintiff’s evidence

establishing a prima facie case and the employer’s evidence of a

                                   32
nondiscriminatory reason reflects a question of fact to be resolved by

the factfinder after trial,” id., precluding summary judgment.

         In sum, we reaffirm: To satisfy the third-stage burden under

McDonnell Douglas and survive summary judgment in a Title VII

disparate treatment case, a plaintiff may, but need not, show that the

employer’s stated reason was false, and merely a pretext for

discrimination; a plaintiff may also satisfy this burden by producing

other evidence indicating that the employer’s adverse action was

motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s membership in a protected

class.

         B. Application to Bart’s Case

         Bart’s   case   presents   a    relatively   straightforward   and

instructional application of these principles. It is undisputed that Bart

is a member of a protected class (women), is qualified for her position,

and suffered an adverse employment action (termination). See Bart,

2023 WL 348102, at *4. And Bart’s testimony about the remarks

                                        33
Pappas allegedly made to her indicating gender-based stereotypes

(the most recent of which was two months before her termination)—

that “he didn’t think women should be managers,” J.A. 209–11, that

being a manager was “too stressful” for women, and that women

were “too sensitive to be managers,” id. 217—is more than sufficient

to meet her minimal first-stage burden of showing “circumstances

[that] give rise to an inference of discrimination,” Vega, 801 F.3d at 83

(internal quotation marks omitted). It is also undisputed that Golub

has met its burden of articulating a legitimate, non-discriminatory

reason for firing Bart: that she created inaccurate food logs on several

occasions while under Pappas’s management, most recently two days

before her termination. The burden therefore shifts back to Bart to

establish that Golub fired her due, at least in part, to her gender.

      At this stage, the district court misapprehended our precedent

by concluding as a matter of law that because Bart admitted to the

behavior underlying Golub’s stated reason for terminating her, she

                                   34
failed to meet her third-stage burden. The district court noted that

“although Plaintiff argues that Pappas’[s] alleged discriminatory

attitudes may be ‘sufficiently probative’ as to the existence of gender-

based discrimination, this argument does not address the Defendant’s

demonstration that Plaintiff was terminated for violating company

policy regarding the handling and logging of food products.” Bart,

2023 WL 348102, at *5. But Bart did not need to “address” Golub’s

showing that she took accountability for the conduct for which it

claims it fired her, where she also produced sufficient evidence

(which we credit at the summary judgment stage) to show that Golub

fired her in part due to Pappas’s gender bias. Those can both be true

without absolving Golub of unlawful discrimination. It was therefore

error to reason that Bart’s “acknowledgement that the reason

provided for her termination was factually accurate and valid under

[Golub]’s policies and procedures[] is dispositive of the pretext issue.”

Id.

                                   35
      We therefore disagree with the district court’s articulation of

the legal standard because, as explained above, undisputed evidence

that substantiates the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason proffered

by the employer at the second stage of McDonnell Douglas is not

necessarily dispositive of the third-stage inquiry. That is because a

plaintiff can satisfy that third-stage burden either by showing (1) that

the employer’s stated reason is false and merely a pretext for

discrimination, or (2) that the employer’s stated reason, although

factually accurate, is not the only reason, because the employer’s

decision was also attributable to an impermissible consideration. See

Aulicino v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Homeless Servs., 580 F.3d 73, 80 (2d Cir.

2009) (“If the defendant meets this second burden, to defeat summary

judgment . . . the   plaintiff’s   admissible   evidence   must   show

circumstances that would be sufficient to permit a rational finder of

fact to infer that the defendant’s employment decision was more

likely than not based in whole or in part on discrimination.” (emphasis

                                    36
added) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Bentley v.

AutoZoners, LLC, 935 F.3d 76, 89–90 (2d Cir. 2019) (considering

independent evidence of discrimination as cognizable to meet the

pretext burden despite the employer having fired the plaintiff for a

legitimate, non-discriminatory reason).

       Here, Bart has adduced competent evidence, drawing

reasonable inferences in her favor, that Pappas—“the actor most

involved with [her] termination,” J.A. 38—harbored gender-based

bias against her. 4 Bart testified that Pappas made several remarks to

       4   On appeal, Golub attempts to minimize Pappas’s role in Bart’s
termination by arguing that its “HR department fired [Bart]” and that Pappas “did
not have authority to fire [her].” Appellee’s Br. 13. Even putting aside Golub’s
failure to cite any record evidence regarding the extent of Pappas’s authority to
hire and fire, his lack of unilateral authority to terminate Bart’s employment would
not in itself defeat Golub’s potential liability. “A Title VII plaintiff can succeed on
a discrimination claim against an employer even absent evidence of illegitimate
bias on the part of the ultimate decision maker, so long as the individual shown to
have the impermissible bias played a meaningful role in the decision-making
process.” Naumovski, 934 F.3d at 220 (internal quotation marks and alteration
marks omitted); see also Bickerstaff, 196 F.3d at 450 (“We recognize that the
impermissible bias of a single individual at any stage of the [decision-making]
process may taint the ultimate employment decision in violation of Title VII.”
(emphasis added)). Here, Pappas repeatedly complained to HR about Bart’s
alleged shortcomings, and prepared Bart’s termination documentation.

                                          37
her, including close in time to the firing, insinuating that he believed

that a man would perform better in Bart’s role than a woman would.

Pappas’s comments are therefore not “stray remarks” insufficiently

tied to the adverse action as to lack probative value. Instead, “[t]he

comments alleged were (1) made repeatedly, (2) drew a direct link

between gender stereotypes and the conclusion that [Bart is ill-suited

for her position as a manager], and (3) were made by [a] supervisor[]

who played a substantial role in the decision to terminate [Bart]. As

such, they are sufficient to support a finding of discriminatory

motive.” Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107,

Moreover, Golub expressly admitted before the district court that it was
“undisputed that [Pappas was] the actor most involved with [Bart’s] termination.”
J.A. 38; see also id. 224, 237 (admitting in its answer to the complaint in state agency
proceedings that Pappas was involved in the decision-making process to fire Bart);
Answer at 4, Bart v. Golub Corp., No. 20-cv-404-KAD (D. Conn. Apr. 23, 2020), ECF
No. 11 (admitting the same in its answer to the complaint in the federal court
proceedings). Thus, reading the evidence in the light most favorable to Bart on
Golub’s summary judgment motion, a reasonable jury could determine that
Pappas was meaningfully involved in the decision to terminate Bart’s
employment, even if Golub’s HR department ultimately executed that decision.

                                          38
124 n.12 (2d Cir. 2004); see Rose v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 257 F.3d 156,

162 (2d Cir. 2001).

      Further, situations such as this where there was more than one

decision-maker involved in the adverse action are often particularly

suited for a motivating-factor analysis at the third stage of McDonnell

Douglas. The alleged discriminatory intent harbored by Pappas, who

the parties agree was involved in the decision to terminate Bart, might

have infected the decision to terminate Bart even if Golub’s stated

reasons were accurate and sincerely held by others involved in the

decision-making process. As we have previously explained,

      there are many circumstances in which a jury may
      justifiably find a prohibited discriminatory motivation
      notwithstanding a different explanation given by the
      employer in good faith without intent to deceive. One
      such circumstance exists where the adverse decision is
      made by two or more persons, some of whom are
      motivated by discrimination, while others are motivated
      by other reasons, and the employer’s innocent
      explanation emanates from those who had no
      discriminatory motivation and were unaware of their
      colleagues’ discriminatory motivation.

Henry, 616 F.3d at 157.

                                   39
       Therefore, Bart has met her burden at the summary judgment

stage of producing competent evidence that Golub, through Pappas’s

involvement, terminated her employment in part based on her

gender.

III.   Conclusion

       Our holding today is not new. But it bears repeating due to the

frequency of Title VII litigation, the infrequency of direct evidence of

discrimination, and the history of Title VII’s evolving causation

standard. We hope today’s decision erases any doubt about the

appropriate standard for the third step of McDonnell Douglas in a Title

VII case alleging disparate-treatment discrimination.

       In sum, we hold as follows:

       (1) To survive summary judgment on a Title VII disparate

          treatment claim, a plaintiff may, but need not, show at the

          third stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test

          that the employer’s stated justification for its adverse action

          was nothing but a pretext for discrimination; a plaintiff may

                                   40
        alternatively satisfy this burden by adducing evidence that,

        even if the employer had mixed motives, the plaintiff’s

        membership in a protected class was at least one motivating

        factor in the employer’s adverse action.

     (2) Here,   Bart   has    adduced     sufficient   evidence   of

        discriminatory intent by a supervisor involved in her

        termination—namely, her testimony that her supervisor

        made several remarks to her as recently as two months

        before her termination indicating that women were

        unsuited to be managers—to defeat Golub’s motion for

        summary judgment and submit the ultimate issue of

        intentional discrimination to a fact finder.

     We therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment and

REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                 41