manager, “recommended” that Lupescu be terminated. While there is some divergence, several courts have suggested or held that the predominance of minority decision-makers is sufficient to constitute a “background circumstance.” See Reynolds v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., 69 F.3d 1523, 1534-35 (10th Cir.1995) (finding that exclusively Latino decision-makers constituted a sufficient background circumstance); see also Zambetti v. Cuyahoga Cmty. Coll., 314 F.3d 249, 257 (6th Cir.2002); Turner v. Grande Pointe Healthcare Cmty., 631 F.Supp.2d 896, 911 (N.D.Ohio 2007); Gardner v. Wayne County, 520 F.Supp.2d 858, 865-66 (E.D.Mich.2007); Tittl v. Ohio, No. 06 C 1411, 2008 WL 731035, at *6 (N.D.Ohio Mar. 17, 2008); but see Taken v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n, 125 F.3d 1366, 1369 (10th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, the record is ambiguous as to whether a
holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern holding that no background circumstances where plaintiff failed to prove that all decisionmakers were minorities holding that plaintiff failed to prove reasonable reliance on a false statement holding that when plaintiff has proven injury but has failed to prove the amount of damages the plaintiff is only entitled to nominal damages holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee