by the Court.” As discussed above, we generally will consider an issue waived that is not raised by the appellant. Chase, 9 A.3d at 1256. It is also true, however, that the trial justice assumed, without deciding, an element of a claim in a summary judgment proceeding, which we have held is “consistent with the summary judgment standard of viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here, [the] plaintiff.” See Daniels v. Fluette, 64 A.3d 302, 305 (R.I.2013). We consistently have agreed with the United States Supreme Court that a plaintiffs burden to establish a prima facie ease of discrimination is “not especially onerous.” See Barros, 710 A.2d at 685; see also St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (<HOLDING>); McGarry, 47 A.3d at 280. In Daniels, 64 A.3d
holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that in title vii disparate treatment case in order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case the plaintiff must proffer evidence among other things that she performed her job according to her employers legitimate expectations if the plaintiff establishes the prima facie case the presumption shifts the burden to the employer to produce a legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for its actions