Mona Hamza v. Saks Fifth Avenue, Inc., 533 F. App'x 34

Hamza alleges Saks terminated her in retaliation for leaving early during Ramadan 2006.
District Court granted Saks judgment as a matter of law on Hamza's Title VII retaliation claim.
The court reviews a renewed JMOL de novo, drawing all inferences in Hamza's favor if applicable.
There is a McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims when direct evidence is absent.
Saks proffered legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons: performance deficiencies, poor customer service, difficulty working with others, and policy noncompliance.
Hamza failed to show, given the record, that a reasonable juror could find Saks’s reasons were pretextual for retaliation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Saks have legitimate non-retaliatory reasons for termination	Hamza contends reasons were pretextual	Saks articulated non-retaliatory performance-based reasons	Yes; reasons were legitimate and non-retaliatory
Can Hamza show pretext to prove retaliation	Evidence shows pretext for retaliation	Evidence supports legitimate reasons, not pretext	No; record insufficient to show pretext

Cash v. Cnty. of Erie, 654 F.3d 324 (2d Cir. 2011) (de novo review of JMOL; favorable view to nonmovant where applicable)
Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008) (guidance on standard for judgment as a matter of law in retaliation context)
Galdieri-Ambrosini v. Nat’l Realty & Dev. Corp., 136 F.3d 276 (2d Cir. 1998) (McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework in retaliation cases)
This Is Me, Inc. v. Taylor, 157 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 1998) (standard for reversing JMOL when reasonable juror could favor plaintiff)
Sir Speedy, Inc. v. L & P Graphics, Inc., 957 F.2d 1033 (2d Cir. 1992) (pretext analysis framework in retaliation context)
Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (application of McDonnell Douglas to retaliation claims)