Tonya C. Huber v. Westar Foods, Inc.

In an employment action in which the plaintiff alleges the defendant engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination or retaliation, if the defendant moves for summary judgment, is a plaintiff who lacks “direct evidence” of retaliatory intent required “to establish retaliatory intent ... through the three-part McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework,” including establishing a prima facie case and demonstrating that the defendant’s proffered explanation was a pretext?

Under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework, if the defendant seeking summary judgment has articulated its claimed legitimate reason for the disputed employment action, is the plaintiff nonetheless still required to establish a prima facie case of unlawful motive?