when another male coworker received such an award after learning the Avid program on the job. Her male coworker was chosen as a lead technician in February 1998, when plaintiff was performing work that would have justified similar recognition for her. Two male coworkers were selected in October 1998 to edit a new program entitled “This week,” even though plaintiff had more experience than one of the males selected. Plai put into question, it is “incumbent upon [the plaintiff] to come forward with evidence establishing the court’s jurisdiction. [The plaintiff] bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Reynolds, 846 F.2d at 748; McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936) (<HOLDING>). “It long has been established, of course,
holding that if plaintiffs allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by his adversary in any appropriate manner he must support them by competent proof holding that if facts are in dispute jury is given authority to resolve them holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged holding that fjactfmding is proper when considering a motion to dismiss where the jurisdictional facts in the complaint  are challenged holding that plaintiffs jurisdictional allegations must arise from the same conduct of which plaintiff complains