Determining whether employer's failure to rebut prima facie case of discrimination mandates judgment for plaintiff

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case is a Non-Mixed Motive and Non-Pretext Title VIJ employment discrimination suit. The exclusive focus in this case is the sort of showing a Title VII employer-defendant must make to rebut a prima facie case of discrimination in order to avoid an entry of judgment as a matter of law in plaintiff's _ favor. For nearly 46 years, the opinion of this Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), established an allocation of the burden of production and an order for the presentation of proof in Title VII discriminatory treatment cases.—under the McDonnell Douglas scheme, "{e]stablishment of the prima facie case in effect creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee." Burdine, supra, at 254—The McDonnell Douglas presumption places upon the defendant the burden of producing an explanation to rebut the prima facie case--7.e, the burden of "producing evidence" that the adverse employment actions were taken "for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." Burdine, 450 U. S., at 254. Here in this particular case, the District Court found that Respondents failed to rebut the presumption set forth in the Petitioner’s prima facie case and she was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Nevertheless, the District Court did not enter judgment for Petitioner and instead took her case to an illegal jury trial and dismissed the case. Below are the District Court’s actual findings at summary judgment: (verbatim) (Pet.App.C,7a-9a) “Since Plaintiff has successfully made a prima facie case of race and of age discrimination, the burden shifts to the Defendants to “articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for the termination. Defendants fail to do so. Because Defendants have failed to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Plaintiff's termination, their motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's age and race discrimination claims is DENIED.” Petitioner appealed the District Court’s illegal decision to take her case to trial because there was no remaining ‘questions of fact’ for a jury to decide; nonetheless, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: (a) repealed almost 46 years of Supreme ; Court’s precedent that mandates finding in her favor as a matter of law; (b) ignored her 11 appealable issues raised: (c) did not perform any De Nova Legal Standard Review as required by law under FRCP 56 and 50(a); and (d) hid their repeal of McDonnellDouglas burden of production and allocation of proof in an “Unpublished” Memorandum prepared by a panel of three Non-Active (Senior) judges. The Ninth Circuit’s wrong opinion said: (Pet.App.A,la-5a) “Contrary to Bryant’s contentions, the district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment determined only that there were questions of fact for the jury with respect to some of Bryant’s claims, and not that Bryant had proved her claims as a matter of law. See Simo v. Union of Needletrades, Indus. & Emps., 322 F.3d 602, 610 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Summary judgment is improper if there are any genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact. . . .’(internal quotation marks omitted)).” Here in this case, the Ninth Circuit’s ‘Unpublished’ Opinion materially contradicts this Court’s established precedents on Respondents’ failure to rebut Petitioner’s prima facie case. This Court says: “{I]f the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff.” Jd, at 254; see ante, at 510, n. 3 (in these circumstances, the factfinder “must find the existence of the presumed fact of unlawful discrimination and must, : therefore, render a verdict for the plaintiff’) (emphasis in original). Thus, if the employer remains silent because it acted for a reason it is too : embarrassed to reveal, or for a reason it fails to discover, see ante, at 513, the plaintiff is entitled to judgment under Burdine.” THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED IS: : 1. Whether, in