Alina Korsunska v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security

U.S. Supreme Court and every circuit has at one time or another expressed the view that employment discrimination and retaliation cases are poor candi­ dates for disposition at the summary judgment stage because these cases often turn on an employer’s moti­ vation and intent. In spite of court statements that granting summary judgment should be used with cau­ tion and sparingly, summary judgment is often granted. Q: Taking into account the right for jury trial and courts’ view that employment discrim­ ination cases are generally poorly suited for disposition on summary judgement, as a general rule, should summary judgement be avoided in discrimination and retaliation cases where out­ come of the case depends on credibility determi­ nation? Q: How much evidence is enough to defeat summary judgment in Title VII discrimination or retaliation case where intent and motivation play leading roles? The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Reeves v. Sand­ erson Plumbing (2000) that “the trier of fact can rea­ sonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discrimina­ tory purpose. Such an inference is consistent with the general principle of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a party’s dishonesty about a mate­ rial fact as “affirmative evidence of guilt.” 530 U.S. 133, 147,120 S.Ct. 2097.