Should summary judgment be avoided in employment discrimination and retaliation cases where outcome depends on credibility determination?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW U.S. Supreme Court and every circuit has at one time or another expressed the view that employment discrimination and retaliation cases are poor candidates for disposition at the summary judgment stage because these cases often turn on an employer’s motivation and intent. In spite of court statements that granting summary judgment should be used with caution and sparingly, summary judgment is often granted. Q: Taking into account the right for jury trial and courts’ view that employment discrimination cases are generally poorly suited for | disposition on summary judgement, as a general | rule, should summary judgement be avoided in discrimination and retaliation cases where outcome of the case depends on credibility determination? Q: How much evidence is enough to defeat summary judgment in Title VII discrimination or retaliation case where intent and motivation play leading roles? The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing (2000) that “the trier of fact can rea: sonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose. Such an inference is consistent with the general principle of evidence law that the factfinder is entitled to consider a party’s dishonesty about a material fact as “affirmative evidence of guilt.” 530 U.S. 133, 147, 120 S.Ct. 2097. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued Q: Should omission and intentional distraction of principal evidence be interpreted as “affirmative evidence of guilt” and is it sufficient to create material dispute of fact and defeat summary judgement?