in Deneen.) When a plaintiff cannot offer direct evidence of an improper discriminatory motive, she must establish a prime facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). In order to do so, the plaintiff must show that (1) she belonged to a protected class; (2) she was qualified for her position; and (3) she was discharged under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Hanenburg v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 118 F.3d 570, 574 (8th Cir.1997). Under this framework, once the plaintiff has established a prime facie case, the employer must then offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action. The burden then shifts back to the pl LLC., 998 F.Supp. 1065, 1069 (D.Minn.1998) (<HOLDING>). At the meeting where Ms. Meier was demoted,
holding that plaintiff must establish that had she learned of impairment during her pregnancy she would have terminated pregnancy holding female supervisors alleged comments that she did not want to add stress to the baby were sufficient direct evidence in a pregnancy discrimination mixed motives case holding that supervisors reactions to comments did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination where comments were made six months prior to plaintiffs discharge and were unconnected to the discharge decision holding that corporate documents which emphasized youth as a positive factor and were authored by one of two persons who participated in a decision to discharge an older worker sufficient direct evidence to support a mixed motives jury instruction holding that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to prove discrimination in mixed motive cases under title vii