Whether the Seventh Circuit defeated the fundamental holding of this Court's decision in Costa when it affirmed the district court's refusal to allow plaintiff to use circumstantial evidence to establish the lie in defendant's explanation for taking adverse actions against plaintiff

QUESTION PRESENTED In Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, this Court rejected a lower court’s rule that required “direct evidence” to support a discrimination claim, and held that “treating circumstantial and direct evidence alike is both clear and deep-rooted: Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.” 539 U.S. 90, 100 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented is: Whether the Seventh Circuit defeated the fundamental holding of this Court’s decision in Costa when it affirmed the district court’s refusal to allow plaintiff to use circumstantial evidence to establish the lie in defendant’s explanation for taking adverse actions against plaintiff.