pharmacy problem resulting from what was administered. 6 . We do not feel it is within our realm of expertise, nor is it our duty, to determine if incompatibility existed. St. Joseph maintained that De Anda should have checked for incompatibility and that her failure to do so was the reason for her termination; not whether there was, in fact, an incompatibility. Whether St. Joseph was wrong in its determination that she should have checked is irrelevant, as long as its belief, though erroneous, was the basis for the termination. Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Center, 615 F.2d 1025, 1032. 7 . Such an error might occur if the trial court required that the burden of proof rather than of production of evidence shift to the defendant after the plaintiff had established r. 1980) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, there is a split in the
holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation