to Mexico, once right around the time that Mr. Keeffe fired Mr. Avila. We find no evidence in the record of any appropriate, work-related reasons for Mr. Keeffe’s remarks; there is no evidence that Jostens required its employees, or its boxers, to speak English, or that Mr. Avila’s language affected his job performance. Mr. Keeffe made the “speak American” remark in a meeting called to discuss th 1265-66 (7th Cir.1993) (indicating that supervisor’s statement that employee should “learn to speak English,” could be circumstantial proof of supervisor’s discriminatory animus, or evidence that the employer’s proffered reason was pretext, if plaintiff shows that the remark is related to the discharge decision); see also Shorter v. ICG Holdings, Inc., 188 F.3d 1204, 1209-10 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds
holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination holding that circumstantial evidence may suffice to show that one is a party to an offense recognizing that derogatory comments may serve as circumstantial evidence of discrimination but the plaintiff must still show some nexus between the statements and the defendants decision to terminate the employee holding that a plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to show valid comparators and presented no other circumstantial evidence of discrimination holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously