the “person who in reality makes the decision.” Id. 354 F.3d at 31. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Reeves, held that the employer was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the McDonnell Douglas framework where one of petitioner’s superiors in the chain of authority, “was motivated by [discriminatory] animus and was principally responsible for petitioner’s firing.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 151, 147 L. Ed. 2d at 122. Thus, when the alleged discrimination was committed by someone other than the plaintiff’s direct supervisor, the identity and motivations of the decision-maker, rather than the direct supervisor, are the proper points of focus in establishing the prima facie case. Cf. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 277, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268, 305 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>); Koski v. Standex Int’l Corp., 307 F.3d 672,
holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that the trial court must determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination holding that statute does not remove plaintiffs burden of proving causation and reasonableness holding that statements by nondecisionmakers are not relevant to satisfying the plaintiffs burden of proving discrimination