manner prior to the events at issue. And Zamora presented evidence from his direct supervisor concerning her belief that Superintendent Rounds overlooked her and another qualified Hispanic woman for promotion. This evidence was sufficient to satisfy Zamora’s “de minimis prima facie burden.” Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092, 1101 (10th Cir.2005). We also agree with the district court that the Board articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Zamora’s termination. In the March 2011 letter, Superintendent Rounds outlined the findings and conclusions contained in Romero’s report and explained that Zamora’s conduct violated the Board’s policies regarding sexual harassment and compensatory time. See EEOC v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184, 1191 (10th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Zamora argues that the Romero report was
holding that the defendants burden at this stage is one of production not one of persuasion holding that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof and persuasion as to the existence of standing holding that plaintiff bears burden of production as well as persuasion recognizing that the burden of persuasion for a showing of prejudice was on the defendant holding that the employers burden is one only of production inasmuch as the burden of proving an improper motive always remains with the plaintiff