Court Opinion

ID: 9629275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:39:48.582921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:42.142640
License: Public Domain

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge,
with whom MURPHY, Circuit Judge, joins, concurring in part and writing separately in part.
I concur in the Court’s decision but write separately because I respectfully disagree with the statement in Part II.B that the McDonnell Douglas framework applies to Bakhtiari’s retaliation claim “[bjecause there is no direct or circumstantial evidence” of retaliation. Ante at 1135 (emphasis added). When a plaintiff produces direct evidence of discrimination or retaliation, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis need not be employed. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 511, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985). Circumstantial evidence cases are different, for the law of this circuit instructs that “[bjecause [Bakhtiari] presented no direct evidence of retaliation, we analyze his claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis.” Gilbert v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll., 495 F.3d 906, 917 (8th Cir.2007) (emphasis added); see Carrington v. City of Des Moines, 481 F.3d 1046, 1050 (8th Cir.2007) (“In the absence of direct evidence, the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas ... governs retaliation claims.”) (emphasis added); Stewart v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 196, 481 F.3d 1034, 1042-43 (8th Cir.2007) (“Without direct evidence of a retaliatory motive, we analyze retaliation claims (whether under Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA), under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas ....”) (emphasis added). Because this is a circumstantial evidence case, I agree that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis governs Bakhtiari’s retaliation claim *1139and that, under this framework, his claim fails.