In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit

August Term, 2023 No. 23-238

ELAINE BART, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GOLUB CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

On Appeal from a Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

SUBMITTED: JANUARY 10, 2024 DECIDED: MARCH 26, 2024

Before: KEARSE, LYNCH, and NARDINI, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Elaine Bart sued her former employer, Defendant-Appellee Golub Corporation (“Golub”), for discrimination under Title VII and state law after she was fired from her job as a supermarket manager. Golub asserted that it fired Bart because she violated store policy by falsifying food logs. Bart admits the violation, but she also claims that Golub fired her because of her gender. She testified that her direct supervisor, who was involved in her termination, had made numerous remarks to her as recently as two months before her termination indicating that women were unsuited to be managers. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Kari A. Dooley, District Judge) granted summary judgment to Golub, reasoning that Bart’s admission that Golub’s stated reason for her termination was legitimate and non- discriminatory was dispositive of the pretext inquiry, defeating her claims. We disagree, and reaffirm our Court’s precedent that to survive summary judgment on a Title VII disparate treatment claim, a plaintiff may, but need not, show at the third stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test that the employer’s stated justification for its adverse action was a pretext for discrimination; a plaintiff may also satisfy this burden by adducing evidence that even if the employer had mixed motives, the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class was at least one motivating factor in the employer’s adverse action. We therefore VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

James V. Sabatini, Sabatini and Associates, LLC, Newington, CT, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joshua Auxier, FLB Law, PLLC, Westport, CT, for Defendant-Appellee.

2 WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judge:

In this opinion, we clarify and reaffirm foundational principles governing pretext and causation in Title VII disparate treatment claims. Plaintiff-Appellant Elaine Bart, a female manager at Price Chopper, a supermarket chain operated by Defendant-Appellee Golub Corporation (“Golub”), was fired two days after she was disciplined for falsifying food logs that are maintained for health and safety purposes. Golub’s stated reason for firing Bart was her violation of store policy. Bart admits that she violated Golub’s food log policy, but nevertheless claims that she was fired because of her gender. Bart then testified in a deposition for this action that her direct supervisor, who the parties agree was involved in the termination decision, had made numerous remarks to her as recently as two months earlier indicating that he believed that women were unsuited to be managers.

3 The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Kari A. Dooley, District Judge) awarded summary judgment to Golub, reasoning that even assuming that Bart had established a prima facie case, her “acknowledgement that the reason provided for her termination was factually accurate and valid under [Golub]’s policies and procedures[] is dispositive of the pretext issue.” Bart v. Golub Corp., No. 3:20