Fact Pattern

Plaintiff, 38 year old black female, has worked for Defendant XYZ corporation (non-union, more than 100 employees, with an EEO Handbook with progressive discipline) for 11 years. She is a line assembly worker, who has received consistent raises from XYZ and now makes $31.00/hour. Her immediate supervisor is a white male who was promoted to the position of line supervisor ("Sup") about 1 year ago, and before he was working alongside Plaintiff. Prior to the Sup taking over, the previous Sup (PSup) was a white male and gave Plaintiff annual reviews all with "exceeding expectations." Since Sup took over, Plaintiff has only had one review but it was all "meeting expectations." Of the 6 similarly situated line workers, 3 are white males (WMs), 1 is a white female (WF), 1 is female of Cuban origin/Latin (LF), and one is Plaintiff. All other similarly line workers have been receiving generally lower rankings since Sup took over, albeit only one round of evaluations.

The Sup's supervisor, Jefe, a black female, is the plant manager for this plant, and the decisionmaker for all employment decisions, in connection with input from HR and the Sup. In March 2024, Plaintiff was terminated, with the employer's stated reasons as, "she was a no show for work and for insubordination." She had received a written warning (not verbal) when she did call in and claimed she was sick, but the Sup did not receive the call. The call was supposed to be before her shift started, but she forgot and called in 30 minutes late. When she did arrive the next day for work on time, Sup with HR issued Plaintiff a written warning (WW) stating that any additional infractions could lead to termination.

During the meeting where the WW was issued, there was no witness. Plaintiff told Sup she was sick and called in, but that she had to leave a voicemail because HR didn't answer. Sup told Plaintiff that he was unaware of the call, but either way, she "needed to stop being lazy at work and show up and be part of the team." Plaintiff said she disagreed with signing the WW because she thought being sick would avoid the WW.

It is unclear what was said next, as Sup testified at the deposition: "Plaintiff would not stop yelling at me that she 'would not sign' and I told her she should sign because either way she did not call in before the shift started."

Plaintiff testified at deposition, "he called me lazy even though I was sick, and then told me that the other line workers have never called in sick or if they did they called in on time. I asked why it was not a verbal warning, he said something about it being WW because it was a no call no show. When I told him that my friend WF and another WM called out after their shift started and did not receive any discipline, he looked surprised and raised his voice and said "worry about yourself" and then "how did I know about that"? and then said he did not appreciate the way I was speaking to him and demanded I sign the WW. At no point did I yell or raise my voice at Sup." The employer records reflect Plaintiff was right about WF and WM calling out after their shift and not receiving any discipline. However, these events happened in early 2023 while PSup was still there.

Sup testified he went to Jefe soon afterward that day and told Jefe that Plaintiff was late and insubordinate and should be fired. Jefe testified she relied on Sup's statements in her decision to terminate Plaintiff, and otherwise would not have. Jefe testified she asked Sup whether "he was sure he wanted to lose such a long term employee" and Sup responded, "I cannot have my employees being insubordinate toward me" especially when "they know better." Jefe was not aware the insubordination was borne from the WW meeting and because Plaintiff would not sign.

Jefe testified she did not recall terminating any other employees for no call and/or no show and/or insubordination when PSup was there. When presented with Sup's text to another white male supervisor in January 2024 (stating: "we've go to do something about those girls on the line, they always are less productive and mouthy versus the other employees"), Jefe testified he was unaware of the email, but agreed that the email was not professional and believed it might be a violation of XYZ's EEO policies or at least "concerning." Jefe testified he would have made the same decision anyway based on Sup's statements about Plaintiff in connection with the termination. The HR department could not find the voicemail of Plaintiff calling in, destroyed audio call as it was routinely destroyed after 60 days per company policy/software for voicemails.

Plaintiff also testified she had heard Sup refer to another black male employee as "that boy" and Sup called her a "dumb bitch" around three years ago when they were both working together and Plaintiff made fun of his favorite college football team. Since taking over, Sup has also terminated a white male line assembly employee, for insubordination in Dec. 2023, when white male called Sup by a denigrating name in front of other line workers when Sup interrupted him to discuss football.

After receiving a right to sue letter form the EEOC, Plaintiff sued Employer alleging disparate treatment discrimination motivated by gender or race. You can assume that Plaintiff made out her prima facie case, and that Defendant's reasons for its actions are "legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons".

Question

How would you write and introduction in support of the Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's summary judgment. There is no direct evidence of discrimination, only circumstantial.