a truck driver who loses her driver’s license is terminated. A narrow application of the “expectation” or “qualification” element would appear to foreclose the driver from proving her prima facie ease, since with no driver’s license she would not be able to show that she met the job qualifications or legitimate expectations of her employer for a position as truck driver. Yet, even though the driver’s case would never get past the prima facie stage, the employer could have still used the loss of the license as a pretext for illegal discrimination. Evidence tending to show this pretext might be that similarly situated men who lost their licenses were not terminated but, instead, were temporarily suspended until they received new licenses or tte, 754 F.2d 1100, 1105 (4th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Although on summary judgment an employer is
holding because libels erisa claim is based on alleged circumstantial evidence  we analyze it under the mcdonnell douglas framework recognizing that the mcdonnell douglas framework is less useful in the context of an alleged discriminatory disciplinary decision than in the context of an alleged discriminatory hiring decision recognizing that whether an employee uses the mcdonnell douglas approach or relies on direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent the employee must counter the employers legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse action in such a manner as to create a genuine issue as to discriminatory intent holding that without a link to the challenged decision stray remarks did not constitute indirect evidence of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the final prong of the mcdonnell douglas framework holding because the plaintiffs erisa claim is based on alleged circumstantial evidence  the eighth circuit analyzed the claim under the mcdonnell douglas framework