A plaintiff may establish pretext either through evidence of disparate treatment or by showing that the employer's proffered explanation is false or "unworthy of credence." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143; Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2013). Alviar’s store had better inventory results than other stores, but he was the only Asset Protection Manager terminated for inventory issues.

Once the employer demonstrates a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show either (1) the BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Page 6 Case 3:15-cv-02593-G Document 29 Filed 10/07/16 Page 10 of 21 PageID 179 employer’s proffered reason is untrue and a mere pretext for discrimination or (2) while the proffered reason is true, it is “only one of the reasons for its conduct, and another motivating factor is [the plaintiff’s] protected characteristic.” Andrews, 2014 WL 6460010 at *4 (citing Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 376 F.3d 305, 312 (5th Cir. 2012) & Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2011)). The burden of demonstrating that “the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.”

Bauer v. Albemarle Corp., 169 F.3d 962, 966 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2747, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); accord Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2011); Brown v. Bunge Corp., 207 F.3d 776, 781 (5th Cir. 2000). If the employer carries its burden, then the plaintiff must come forward with evidence establishing its proffered motive is pretextual for discrimination; however, mere speculation and an employee's personal belief are insufficient to create a fact issue as to pretext.

“To establish pretext, [a plaintiff] must show that [a defendant’s] proffered explanation is false or unworthy of credence.” Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 637 (5th Cir. 2011). In other words, Wei’s burden before the trier of fact was to show that intentional discrimination lay at the heart of SwRI’s decision.

To establish pretext, [a plaintiff] must show that [a defendant's] proffered explanation is false or unworthy of credence." Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 637 (5th Cir. 2011). Tn other words, he must show that intentional discrimination lay at the heart of SwRI's decision.