standards. The court finds that although there are issues of fact as to whether certain discrete calculations in fact complied with GAAP, there is insufficient evidence to raise an inference of scienter with respect to the entirety of the 1997 audit and audit opinion. C. Ernst’s Response to Allegations of Fraud, Plaintiffs claim that Ernst failed to properly investigate or otherwise respond to allegations of accounting fraud raised against IKON management during both the 1997 audit and the Special Procedures. Ernst’s conduct during the 1998 Special Procedures is relevant to plaintiffs’ claim that the Special Procedures covered up and continued the 1997 financial statements fraud. See generally Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs are correct that if Ernst merely
holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination holding that congressional intent to eliminate employment discrimination justified the liberalization of common law successorship rules in favor of victims of discrimination in employment holding that high degree of similarity between extraneous and charged offense used in cases proving modus operandi not required when purpose of proof is to show intent recognizing that the test for intentional discrimination in suits under  1981 is the same as the formulation used in title vii discriminatory treatment cases holding that in establishing intentional discrimination in employment proving a defendants efforts to cover up the discriminatory purpose is part of and often considerably assists the greater enterprise of proving wrongful intent