under Rule 50, and we have reiterated that trial courts should not “ ‘treat discrimination differently from other ultimate questions of fact.’ ” St. Mary’s Honor Center [v. Hicks], 509 U.S. [502,] 524, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 [(1993)] (quoting [U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Governors v.] Aikens, 460 U.S. [711,] 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 [ (1983) ]). Whether judgment as a matter of law is appropriate in any particular case will depend on a number of factors. Those include the strength of the plaintiffs prima facie case, the probative value of the proof that the employer’s explanation is false, and any other evidence that supports the employer’s case and that properly may be considered on a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148-49, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (<HOLDING>). The question in this case is whether, judged
recognizing that while the lack of an express statute granting sovereign immunity precludes such immunity as a matter of law the entity in question could still be determined to be acting as an agency of the state under the facts and circumstances of a particular relationship recognizing further that the court need not  and could not  resolve all of the circumstances in which such factors would entitle an employer to judgment as a matter of law recognizing that in certain circumstances inquiry notice may be determined as a matter of law holding that a district court should decide a motion for expedited discovery on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances unless the circumstances are such that the notaro factors apply holding that motion to dismiss should not  be granted unless the moving party has established that there is no material issue of fact to resolve and that it is entitled to judgment in its favor as a matter of law