circumstances, she has put forth nothing that would be sufficient to show that the defendants’ proffered explanation (dissatisfaction with her performance) was mere pretext for racial discrimination. Indeed, after her employment ended, she was in fact replaced with another African-American. See Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel, 365 F.3d 1139, 1150 (D.C.Cir.2004) (“The employer’s hiring of a person of the same race ... as the plaintiff might be relevant in assessing the merits of a plaintiffs claim.”). To be sure, replacement of an African-American with another African-American will not, conclusively, defeat an African-American’s claim of racially discriminatory firing or failure to renew employment contract. Cf. Howard v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 726 F.2d 1529, 1534-35 (11th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). But, as stated, such evidence is relevant,
holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that a plaintiff had established a primafacie failuretohire case notwithstanding evidence that the position sought by the plaintiff was ultimately filled with a person of the same race as the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff established a right to a slogan based on evidence of public recognition of its use by the plaintiff holding that where an express contract was in place between plaintiff and defendant that governed the compensation sought by plaintiff plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment holding plaintiff failed to raise inference of discrimination where only evidence plaintiff adduced was fact that decisionmaker was different race