$1.$ Troland$$s e$-$mail to Cavagnero, Troland$$s statement to University EEO officer, and

Cavagnero$$s and other professors$$ deposition testimony provide direct evidence of

discriminatory intent among the members of the search committee, thereby

precluding the application of the McDonnell$-$Douglass shifting burden of proof.

$2.$ Because Gaskell has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that UK$$s

reasons were a pretext for discrimination, Gaskell$$s claims must be dismissed and

the University of Kentucky$$s motion for summary judgment must be granted.

$3.$ Because UK has come forward with more than a scintilla of evidence to support its

argument that religion was not a motivating factor in its decision, Gaskell$$s motion

for partial summary judgment will be denied.

$4.$ Gaskell pursued a disparate treatment employment discrimination claim, rather than

a disparate impact or mixed motives claim of employment discrimination.

$5.$ If Gaskell$$s allegations are true and are established by a preponderance of evidence

at trial, Gaskell is entitled to compensatory and punitive damages.