animus,” or “data showing that the defendant employs members of the plaintiffs protected class at rates far below their numbers in the applicant pool and the general population.” See Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344, 1352 (D.C.Cir.2012); Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 899. B. Insufficient Evidence to Support an Inference of Discrimination Ms. Thompson argues that her qualifications and the circumstantial evidence in this case impugn the government’s credibility and would allow a jury to infer discrimination. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. 19-28. But, whether considered singly or as a whole, Ms. Thompson’s arguments, viewed in light of the evidence, do not show that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in her favor. See Holcomb v. Powell, 438 F.3d 889, 901 (D.C.Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). 1. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Willis’s Comparative
holding that when a plaintiff has produced neither evidence to show that her nonselection was because of her protected class nor evidence rebutting the employers legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for selecting another candidate summary judgment is appropriate holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that the plaintiffs argument rebutting the defendants legitimate nondiscriminatory reason on the plaintiffs discrimination claim also rebutted the defendants reason on the plaintiffs retaliation claim because they were the same holding that drugrelated misconduct is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination holding that summary judgment was appropriate where plaintiffs admissions in her deposition undermined her claims