to show that the offered reason was merely pretext for a discriminatory motive. Noble argues that Ms. Meier cannot establish a prime facie case of pregnancy discrimination, and that even if she could, she cannot meet her burden to prove that Noble’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her demotion was pretext for discrimination. However, when the Court interprets the facts in a light most favorable to Ms. Meier, as it must, it reaches a different conclusion. The Court questions the very premise that Ms. Meier bears the burden of proving pretext under the McDonnell Douglas framework for circumstantial Title VII cases. It appears to the Court that there is direct evidence of discrimination in this case, thus simply requiring Ms. Meier to prove that her dem , 449 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Hietala v. Real Estate Equities/Village
holding that corporate documents which emphasized youth as a positive factor and were authored by one of two persons who participated in a decision to discharge an older worker sufficient direct evidence to support a mixed motives jury instruction holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding evidence sufficient to support aggravating factor of old age holding that while evidence which showed only that the defendant participated in the audience of persons who viewed the images  may be sufficient to establish that the defendants actions were one cause of the generalized harm to the victims it is not sufficient to show that the defendant was a proximate cause of any particular losses holding female supervisors alleged comments that she did not want to add stress to the baby were sufficient direct evidence in a pregnancy discrimination mixed motives case