of the job,’ not that he was doing it satisfactorily.” McGinnis v. Union Pac. R.R., 496 F.3d 868, 874 n. 2 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87, 92 (2d Cir.2001)). The court of appeals reasoned that requiring any greater showing would “collapse[ ] the prima facie case into the McDonnell Douglas framework” and be in error. Riley, 518 F.3d at 1000; see McGinnis, 496 F.3d at 874 n. 2. Applying the RileyMcGinnis criterion in this case, plaintiffs easily meet their burden of establishing this stage of the prima facie case based on their multi-year work history at USCC. See Riley, 518 F.3d at 1000 (“Since he had been performing the DAM job successfully for years, he met the requirement of the prima facie case.”); McGinnis, 496 F.3d at 875-76 (<HOLDING>). At the time of plaintiffs’ terminations,
holding that disclosure was required where the current employer permitted the paralegal to work on the same litigation she had worked for at her prior firm even after becoming aware that she had previously worked on the case holding that plaintiff was otherwise qualified for position where he had worked for defendant employer for approximately twentyeight years holding that the plaintiff had a right of privacy in the contents of a settlement agreement that stated that the plaintiff had sued his employer for failing to hire him because he was a single gay male and because his employer suspected that he had aids 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 plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position