Jeanette's new supervisor is Bob. On several occasions, Bob has asked Jeanette out on dates and appears angry when she refuses. Jeannette, who previously received good job performance evaluations from prior supervisors, starts receiving bad performance reviews. Bob tells Jeanette that he has to rate someone lower, and he knows that women will complain less than men, so he picked Jeanette to get a bad review. Jeanette complains to Human Resources. Bob is required to attend discrimination training, and Jeannette agrees to transfer to another department at the same rate of pay and job responsibilities.

Several years later, Bob gets promoted to a new job in which he is in charge of auditing the performance of employees in numerous departments. Bob audits Jeanette's work and finds mistakes with her work, which he describes in several audit reports. Jeanette is not aware of the audit reports.

A year later the company restructures its operations and terminates some employees. Tammy is in charge of making the decision regarding which employees will lose their jobs. Tammy decides to fire the individuals who have received the lowest scores on performance audits. Jeanette is fired. Tammy has never met Jeanette, has only met Bob socially, and is not aware of the earlier incident between Bob and Jeanette.

• What exactly is Jeanette required to prove to prevail? Is the federal law clear on this issue? What about California? Would you suggest any changes to this area of the law or disparate treatment discrimination law in general?