establishes a prima facie case of illegal discrimination (as discussed below), then the burden shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision. 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. If the employer does so, the presumption of discrimination “drops from the case” and the employee must demonstrate that the employer’s stated reason for its action was in fact a pretext for improper discrimination. Id. at 804, 93 S.Ct. 1817. The Supreme Court has made clear that the plaintiff at all times “bears the ultimate burden of proving ... intentional discrimination.” Runnebaum v. Nations-Bank of Maryland, 123 F.3d 156, 164 (4th Cir.1997) (en banc), citing St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-11, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (<HOLDING>). However, in Reeves, the Supreme Court
holding that an employees attempt to prove actual discrimination requires more substantial evidence than a prima facie case because evidence of pretext and discrimination is viewed in light of the employers justification holding that a plaintiff s prima facie case combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employers asserted justification is false may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated emphasis added 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 holding circumstantial evidence that defendant former employer was providing negative employment reference to plaintiffs prospective employers was sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the causation element of prima facie case holding that a prima facie case plus disbelief of employers asserted justification for employment action is not necessarily sufficient to establish a violation and that in such cases summary judgment is appropriate unless the plaintiff presents adequate evidence that the employer unlawfully discriminated