admissible at trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. at 2514; Thomas v. Price, 975 F.2d 231, 235 (5th Cir.1992) (“To avoid a summary judgment, the nonmoving party must adduce admissible evidence which creates a fact issue....”). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonable find for the plaintiff.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. at 2512. Summary judgment evidence in discriminatory treatment cases brought under Title VII or the ADEA is examined under the three-step burden-shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). See also Bodenheimer v. PPG Indus., Inc., 5 F.3d 955, 957 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). First, a plaintiff must establish a prima
holding that the mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting framework applies to retaliation claims in the same manner as to discrimination claims holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea holding that threestep analysis outlined in mcdonnell douglas applies to claims brought under  1983 holding that the threestep mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting analysis applies to  1983 claims