After discovery, the City moved for summary judgment on all claims, which the District Court granted. Thomas now appeals. II We apply the burden-shifting framework explained in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), to Thomas’s § 1983 and PHRA discrimination claims. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 & n. 1, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (assuming that McDonnell Douglas applies to § 1983 claims and setting forth the elements for a prima facie case under Title VII); Stewart v. Rutgers, The State Univ., 120 F.3d 426, 431-32 (3d Cir.1997) (applying McDonnell Douglas to an Equal Protection claim arising from alleged employment discrimination); Gomez v. Allegheny Health Servs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1084 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). At the first step, Thomas must establish a
holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework applies equally to ada and rehabilitation act cases holding that the phra is construed consistently with interpretations of title vii and applying mcdonnell douglas holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea holding that mcdonnell douglas framework which is used in title vii cases applies to ada cases when only circumstantial evidence of discrimination is offered