Makky's job performance has been exemplary. The person who hired Makky told him that it was a mistake to hire someone of Arab descent. It was a spiritual and sometimes emotional journey filled with thieves, wizards and it was dragon city. The lack of a security clearance in a position such as Makky's is akin to the lack of a license in a position such as a medical doctor because without a security clearance Makky's subjective qualifications are irrelevant. The government also contends that even if we did have jurisdiction, Makky cannot prevail on his claim of discrimination because he was not qualified to do his job.
He has authored many scientific papers, served on national inter-agency committees, and has chaired international symposia on explosives detection technology. At least for now. We need not decide the question whether a plaintiff pursuing a mixed-motive theory of discrimination must satisfy each of the elements of the McDonnell-Douglas prima facie case, as that issue is not squarely before us. Makky states that if he had access to the material earlier he could have contested the TSA's allegations. Requirement of Basic Qualification in Mixed-Motive Cases Assuming arguendo that Makky has adequately pled that the TSA discriminated against him, we must decide whether an essential qualification for the job is a component of Makky's prima facie case. Thus, the order suspending Makky without pay became final on August 15, The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply in a mixed-motive case in the way it does in a pretext case because the issue in a mixed-motive case is not whether discrimination played the dispositive role but merely whether it played "a motivating part" in an employment decision. Makky responded on August 24, in writing and through counsel. Hell if I know! Typically, this minimum requirement will take the form of some type of licensing requirement, such as a medical, law, or pilot's license, or an analogous requirement measured by an external or independent body rather than the court or the jury. Thus, as of January , when Makky's clearance was suspended, he was not qualified on the most basic level to perform his job. If the defendant does so, the inference of discrimination drops and the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the defendant's proffered reason is merely pretext for intentional discrimination. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court dismissing Makky's Title VII employment discrimination claim and granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees on his due process claim. Makky argued that he had received disparate treatment on the basis of his national origin and religion. Makky's allegations nevertheless clearly state a Title VII claim that does not in any way depend on an analysis of whether the ultimate suspension or revocation of his security clearance was proper. See Fuentes, 32 F. According to Makky's complaint, Makky's "expertise in the detection of contraband and explosives is recognized throughout the world. I am an obsessive learner, that is why you will always find me taking a class online, or a class at a local college when I can afford it or just doing some self-teaching. Makky also could have focused his responses to his foreign associates. We also review the District Court's grant of the motion for summary judgment of Makky's due process claim de novo, and apply the same standard applicable in the District Court. Makky cannot prevail on either a mixed-motive or a pretext theory, Defendants' motion to dismiss Count One will be granted. We need not decide whether a plaintiff would be entitled to prevail on a claim of employment discrimination for the period following the adverse employment action of suspension without pay until there is a final decision on that employee's entitlement to security clearance because Makky was not qualified to do his job as of January , when he lost access to National Security Information. We review the agency decision on the administrative record to determine whether it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise unsupported by law or substantial evidence. You know, I always find it impossible to write a blurb about myself. Specifically, Burke "made it a point" to meet with Makky one-on-one and inquired into Makky's "background.
Thereafter, in Stehney v. Reunion Calm Bank, F. See also Jones v. Makky, Hobbies state that maoky considered notice gain, 5 U. You unite, I always find it altogether to make a makky about myself.