The plaintiff, a black female, worked as a molding supervisor for the defendant. She sued, complaining that she was paid less than her counterparts, all white males. The company responded that the disparity was based on her fellow supervisors' technical skills, such as the ability to tear down molds, repair and adjust the molding machines, work with resins, and engage in troubleshooting. Labeling this explanation a pretext for discrimination, the plaintiff argued that these skills were irrelevant to the essential functions of her supervisory position. To the contrary, while she admitted lacking such a skill set, she claimed to have been told not to tinker with the machines.

Assuming that the plaintiff was able to prove she competently performed all her supervisory duties, but the defendant proved that handling the machinery was a useful, though not essential, aspect of the job, do you think the firm has borne its burden of articulating a legitimate business reason for paying the plaintiff less than her white colleagues? [See Henderson v. Mid-South Electronics, Inc., 2015 WL 875381 (N.D. Ala. 2015).]

The plaintiff, an African American, claimed that a white coworker informed her that the manager of the restaurant where she worked told this coworker she wouldn't be safe at that location because the staff was "mostly black." The plaintiff further alleged that when she went over the manager's head and filed a complaint, her hours were cut back.

If her allegations are accurate, has the plaintiff articulated a prima facie case of race discrimination? Of retaliation?