Bart v. Golub Corp., 96f4th566

Elaine Bart, a female supermarket manager for Golub Corporation (operator of Price Chopper), was fired after admitting to falsifying food logs in violation of company policy.
Bart claimed her termination was not solely due to the violation, but was also motivated by gender discrimination by her supervisor, Damon Pappas, who had made repeated biased comments against women managers.
Bart sought internal review after termination, citing workplace hostility but not discrimination, and later filed suit alleging unlawful gender discrimination under Title VII and Connecticut state law.
The district court granted summary judgment for Golub, holding that Bart’s admission of violating company policy was dispositive and defeated her discrimination claim.
On appeal, the Second Circuit reviewed whether sufficient evidence existed for Bart’s claim to survive summary judgment under McDonnell Douglas framework, even if Golub's stated reason for termination was factually true.
The Second Circuit vacated the summary judgment and remanded, clarifying the standard for mixed-motive discrimination claims under Title VII.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether factually valid employer reason bars discrimination claim	Bart was also terminated due to gender bias, not just policy violation	Bart’s stated policy violation was legitimate, so no discrimination	Factually accurate, non-discriminatory reasons do not automatically bar a claim if bias was a factor
Third-stage McDonnell Douglas standard for survival of summary judgment	Evidence of supervisor’s gender bias is sufficient even with mixed motives	Plaintiff must show employer’s reason is pretext (false)	Plaintiff may survive by showing protected status was a motivating factor, not just if reason is false
Sufficiency of supervisor’s discriminatory remarks as evidence	Supervisor’s gendered comments were direct and recent, showing bias	Comments are stray, not directly linked to termination decision	Remarks were directly tied to plaintiff’s role and made by decisionmaker; sufficient for jury question
Role of multiple decisionmakers in mixed-motive cases	Bias by an involved supervisor suffices, even if HR ultimately terminated	Only HR could fire; supervisor input irrelevant	Discriminatory motive by any meaningful participant can taint decision, regardless of authority

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting analysis in Title VII cases)
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) (Title VII liability for mixed-motive discrimination)
Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (circumstantial evidence can support mixed-motive instructions)
Holcomb v. Iona Coll., 521 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2008) (mixed-motive claims within McDonnell Douglas framework)