medical conduct, and an impending investigation by the Michigan Department of Consumer and Industry Affairs. They declined to purchase the plaintiffs medical practice because they deny that any such contractual obligation exists, and that it is not in the economic interest of the hospital to do so. Finally, they explain that the hostility and acrimony that characterized the relationship between the hospital administration and the plaintiff over the years grew from the plaintiffs vituperative and dicta torial personality directed toward the medical and nursing staffs. These nondiscriminatory reasons are sufficient to shift the burden back to the plaintiff to show pretext. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43, 120 S. ces, 30 F.3d 45, 47-48 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). It must be recognized, however, that it is
holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext was insufficient because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the employer did not honestly believe its proffered reasons for its action holding that when a plaintiff proves the defendants stated reasons for hiring someone else were pretext for offering the position to a personal friend and not a pretext for racial discrimination she does not establish triable issues of fact holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee