| | Replacement No Longer Element of Employment Discrimination Prima Facie Case (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-06) |
 | | However, over the years, the courts repeatedly have restated the fourth element of a discharge prima facie case as requiring replacement by someone outside the protected category occupied by the plaintiff, in cases where the classification of plaintiffs and their replacement were largely categorical (men/women), and not continuous (as with age). |
 | | As the very name "prima facie case" suggests, there must be at least a logical connection between each element of the prima facie case and the illegal discrimination for which it establishes a "legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption," Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 n. |
 | | Rather, the prima facie case "clearly require[s] only 'evidence adequate to create an inference that an employment decision was based on illegal discriminatory criterion'" and is not limited to showing that the position was filled by a person not of the protected class. |
| www.ocmilaw.com /CM/Articles/Articles40.asp (2299 words) |