1. Who prevails and why?

2. Why did Aquino have the burden of proving that Honda’s reason for discharging him was a pretext? Didn’t he already prove a prima facie case?

3. Considering the criminal charges against him were dropped, what would Aquino need to have shown in order to meet his burden of proof that Honda’s reasons for dismissing him were pretextual?

Aquino, a man of Chinese-Filipino origin, worked on a Honda assembly line. His time at Honda was tumultuous, and he had been suspended on numerous occasions for disciplinary violations. Upon returning from a suspension in 2001, Aquino was assigned to an engine installation station. Concurrent with Aquino’s assignment, Honda experienced a number of cases of vehicle tampering and vandalism. A Honda manager conducted an investigation and concluded that Aquino was the only person with access to the tools necessary to conduct the vandalism. Upon Honda’s complaint, Aquino was arrested, but the charges were eventually dropped due to insufficient evidence. Nonetheless, Honda terminated Aquino’s employment after an internal investigation confirmed its initial conclusions on the matter. Aquino filed suit, claiming his termination was based on the fact that he was the only nonwhite employee assigned to the unit. At trial, Honda asserted that its investigation and conclusion that Aquino had committed the vandalism were legitimate reasons for firing Aquino. When the burden shifted back to Aquino, he asserted, but did not provide any evidence, that Honda manipulated the evidence of the incidents.