Does requiring the trial judge to weigh inferences (and in some cases inferences from inferences) and determine motive from competing testimony deprive a plaintiff of his Seventh Amendment right to make his case to a jury?

QUESTION PRESENTED Summary judgment in this typical employment discrimination case requires the trial court to weigh and choose between competing inferences of what was and was not a part of a motivation for an employment decision. Choosing among competing inferences is uniquely a jury competency. Determining motive is uniquely a jury competency. The Seventh Amendment recognizes that judges, institutionally, are not good at weighing competing inferences and deciphering motive. Still, that is what the Circuit Court’s application of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test required of the trial court at summary judgment, to the exclusion of Dr. Laul’s constitutional right to a jury determination of these classic jury questions. QUESTION PRESENTED Does requiring the trial judge to weigh inferences (and in some cases inferences from inferences) and determine motive from competing testimony deprive a plaintiff of his Seventh Amendment right to make his case to a jury? ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS BELOW United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Case Number 18-2084 Jagdish C. Laul, v. Los Alamos National Laboratories, Defendant-Appellee Order and Judgment Dated May 6, 2019 United States District Court for the District of New Mexico Case Number 16 CV 1017 JAP/KBM Jagdish C. Laul, Plaintiff v. Los Alamos National Laboratories, Defendant Memorandum Opinion and Order Dated May 8, 2018