Bohrer v. Hanes Corp., 715 F.2d 213, 217 (5th Cir.1983)). Thus, we review the jury verdict under the plain error standard, examining only whether the plaintiff has “presented any evidence in support of his claim.” Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). In an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff must show that he received disparate treatment because of his race, and that the proffered nondiscriminatory reason for his treatment was a pretext for racial discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 677 (1973). McKenzie has presented some, albeit minimal, evidence of treatment different from similarly situated nonmembers of his protected class. See Williams v. Trader Pub. Co., 218 F.3d 481, 484 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). He has therefore met the plain error
holding that circumstantial evidence may be used to prove a wiretap claim including actual interception holding that the same types of evidence used to prove a title vii claim also may be used to prove a  1983 claim holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination holding that circumstantial evidence maybe sufficient to prove venue