from a series of Circuit cases with analogous analyses of the prima facie case, holding that once there has been a trial on the merits, an appellate court can not revisit whether the plaintiff established her prima facie case. See, e.g., Suggs v. ServiceMaster Educ. Food Mgmt, 72 F.3d 1228, 1232 (6th Cir.1996) (“Since this case proceeded to trial on the merits, on review, this Court does not revisit the McDonnell Douglas [Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)7 analysis of whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination. Rather, we proceed directly to the ultimate question of whether the plaintiff carried her burden of proof of discriminatory discharge.”); Wilson v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 932 F.2d 510, 513-14 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Fields v. Bolger, 723 F.2d 1216, 1219 (6th
holding that a plaintiffs prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts is reviewed de novo recognizing confusion caused by prima facie language holding that the prima facie question is not reviewed since the matter proceeded to trial holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence