proper, and that we should affirm those rulings. It is important to note that the majority opinion would have the effect óf heightening the plaintiff’s proof requirements in race discrimination cases, and would push our State’s law outside the national mainstream, to the detriment of those who seek redress for discrimination based on race. Although this case involves “reverse discrimination” against a white plaintiff, the primary impact of the decision will be on those individuals and groups who have historically suffered the most from discrimination in our State. The United States Supreme Court has continually cautioned lower courts against attempting to impose heightened burdens on plaintiffs in race discrimination cases. See Desert Palace, Inc., 539 U.S. at 101, 156 L. Ed. 2d at 95 (<HOLDING>). I do not believe this Court should increase
holding that no federal nexus is required holding that no heightened showing is required recognizing that opinion work product subject to discovery upon heightened showing of compelling need recognizing chat iqbal may have heightened the requirements for showing a supervisors personal involvement with respect to certain constitutional violations holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required