context: The court concludes that, even when all inferences are drawn in Roberts's favor, his allegations fail to raise a fact issue as to whether the reasons articulated by Willow for its actions are mere pretexts for race discrimination.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 63 F.3d 429, 436
citation_a.parenthetical: plaintiff alleging retaliation must prove that "but for" his complaints of discrimination, he would not have been discharged
citation_a.sentence: See Thornton v. Neiman Marcus, 850 F.Supp. 538, 544 (N.D.Tex.1994) (to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff must offer more than the subjective belief of himself and others that he was a victim of discrimination); see also Ray v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 63 F.3d 429, 436 (5th Cir.1995) (plaintiff alleging retaliation must prove that “but for” his complaints of discrimination, he would not have been discharged); Jack v. Texaco Research Center, 743 F.2d 1129, 1131(5th Cir.1984) (same).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 850 F.Supp. 538, 544
citation_b.parenthetical: to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff must offer more than the subjective belief of himself and others that he was a victim of discrimination
citation_b.sentence: See Thornton v. Neiman Marcus, 850 F.Supp. 538, 544 (N.D.Tex.1994) (to avoid summary judgment, the plaintiff must offer more than the subjective belief of himself and others that he was a victim of discrimination); see also Ray v. Tandem Computers, Inc., 63 F.3d 429, 436 (5th Cir.1995) (plaintiff alleging retaliation must prove that “but for” his complaints of discrimination, he would not have been discharged); Jack v. Texaco Research Center, 743 F.2d 1129, 1131(5th Cir.1984) (same).