To the contrary, it is clear from the record that the plaintiff was terminated solely because she was subject to a short-term, temporary assignment, for which the DOJ's funding had expired. See Newton v. CBS, Inc., 841 F.Supp. 19, 23 (D.D.C.1994) (finding that the need to furlough employees for financial reasons constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the plaintiff's employment). First, the record reveals that the defendant terminated the plaintiff's employment, not to retaliate against her, but because the contract under which the defendant hired her had expired.
A dispute involving the relative qualifications of applicants is, by its very nature, a fact intensive inquiry, requiring the trier of fact to weigh the applications, selecting criteria, and selecting process. See Newton v. CBS, 841 F.Supp. 19, 22-23 (D.D.C. 1994) (noting that questions of relative qualifications of applicants are questions of fact best resolved by the trier of fact). This is especially true where defendant — the movant here — bears the burden on the question of relative qualifications.
Once the defendant articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse action against plaintiff, "the plaintiff must then carry her overall burden of persuasion by showing that the proffered and allegedly nondiscriminatory reasons are really pretextual. . . ." Newton v. CBS, Inc., 841 F. Supp. 19, 21-22 (D.D.C. 1994) (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824); see also St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2747, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255, 101 S.Ct. at 1094-95; Davis v. Combustion Engineering, Inc., 742 F.2d at 916, 921 (6th Cir. 1984); Scales, 925 F.2d at 906-907. The plaintiff must show that the defendant's adverse employment decision was, in fact, motivated by discrimination.