more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors.” Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 634 (quoting Furnco Const. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978)). To rebut the presumption of discrimination, the City must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Kaplan’s firing. EEOC v. Chevron Phillips, 570 F.3d 606, 615 (5th Cir. 2009); Garcia, 372 S.W.3d at 634. In order to obtain summary judgment, the City was required to prove such a reason as a matter of law. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d at 24. The City’s burden may be met by proving Kap-lan was fired because of: (1) his insubordination; or (2) his failure to perform satisfactorily. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097; Goudeau v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 793 F.3d 470, 476 (5th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>); Pita Santos, 650 F.Supp.2d at 611; Yiqing
holding that plaintiff bears burden of production as well as persuasion holding without extended discussion that the presumption shifts only the burden of production holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only holding that the defendants burden at this stage is one of production not one of persuasion holding employer satisfied its burden of production