facto justifications that, at a minimum, raise a genuine issue of material fact that defendant’s methodology for evaluating its employees was indeed biased against plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff has established a genuine issue of material fact that defendant’s articulated reasons for failing to promote and for terminating plaintiff are pretex-tual. Additionally, as stated earlier, plaintiff has established a genuine issue of material fact concerning the inference that can be drawn regarding whether she was fired based on her age and gender. As is well-established, the same facts may be relied upon to prove both a prima facie case of discrimination as well as to prove such discrimination by a prepondera d.2d 539 (1994); DeMarco v. Holy Cross High Sch., 4 F.3d 166, 170 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>) Plaintiff has raised sufficient genuine issues
holding defendants proffer of a false reason for employment action sufficient basis for trier of fact to find that such action was motivated by an improper discriminatory intent holding that issues of discriminatory intent and actual motivation are questions of fact for the trier of fact holding that plaintiff can show pretext by demonstrating that an employers proffered reason for an adverse employment action has no basis in fact holding that circumstantial evidence that the stated reason for an adverse employment action was false can be evidence of causation in a whistleblower cause of action holding that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the defendants acted with malice