proves a violation under section 2000e-2(m) of this title and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent would have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the court— (i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief (except as provided in clause (ii) ), and attorney’s fees and costs d 1095, 1103-04 (11th Cir.2001) (same). The Sixth Circuit recently expressed doubt about whether it will continue to use the “background circumstances” test. See Pierce v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 40 F.3d 796, 801 n. 7 (6th Cir.1994). The Second and Fourth Circuits also appear to have adopted the Fifth Circuit's approach although they have declined to explicitly address the issue. See Stem v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., 131 F.3d 305, 312 (2d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Lucas v. Dole, 835 F.2d 532, 533-34 (4th
holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that a white male made out a prima facie case on the basis of national origin and not discussing the need for him to show any background circumstances