request which Allright accommodated. Allright maintains that this is the reason that Memberu, and not Matthews, was asked to work as night manager in 1999. Memberu has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Allright’s nondiscriminatory explanation for the pay differential is either false or a pretext for discrimination. Memberu’s appellate brief focuses on the fact that the two employees were paid different wages. But he never rebuts Allright’s assertion that length of service as a supervisor explains the differential, nor does he offer any other evidence that a discriminatory purpose drove the wage gap between himself and Matthews. As the district court held, these failures are fatal to Memberu’s wage-discrimination claim. See Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (<HOLDING>). B. Discriminatory Denial of Benefits Memberu
recognizing that whether the employee uses the mcdonnell douglas framework or other evidence to create a prima facie case when the employer offers a legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for its adverse action the question is whether a rational trier of fact could conclude that the employers action was taken for impermissibly discriminatory reasons holding that a prima facie case plus disbelief of employers asserted justification for employment action is not necessarily sufficient to establish a violation and that in such cases summary judgment is appropriate unless the plaintiff presents adequate evidence that the employer unlawfully discriminated holding that a plaintiff s prima facie case combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employers asserted justification is false may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated emphasis added holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that the establishment of a prima facie case and evidence casting doubt on the veracity of the employers explanation is sufficient to find liability