Douglas burden-shifting framework. Morgan v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 328 F.3d 647, 650-51 (D.C.Cir.2003). The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has not established a prima facie case of failure to promote. Def.’s Mot. at 7. The plaintiff contends that he has met all four elements of establishing a prima facie case because (1) he is a Nigerian, (2) he applied for a supervisory/managerial position for which he was qualified, (3) he never received these promotions and (4) less qualified Ethiopian and white candidates were promoted instead. Pl.’s Opp’n at 8-9. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff, however, fails to support the proposition that he passed over for promotions in favor of Ethiopian and white candidates. See McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (<HOLDING>); Bundy, 641 F.2d at 951 (opining that “to make
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the defendant did not deprive the plaintiff of a property interest in his continued employment because the plaintiff voluntarily resigned when he refused to report to work after being transferred to a new position holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding in an age discrimination case that even though a plaintiff need not revisit his prima facie case after a trial on the merits he still must show that he has met his ultimate burden of proving that the employer terminated him because of age emphasis added holding that the plaintiff carries the burden of showing that after he was rejected for a promotion the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainants qualifications  emphasis added