Barbara R. Sheridan v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Jacques Amblard

100 F.3d 1061, 45 Fed. R. Serv. 1350, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 29565, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,509, 72 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 518, 1996 WL 659353

Opinions

Argued May 4, 1995.

Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, ALITO, Circuit Judge, and SCHWARZER, District Judge.*

Reargued en banc May 14, 1996.

Before: SLOVITER, Chief Judge, BECKER, MANSMANN, GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, ROTH, LEWIS, McKEE, and SAROKIN**, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

SLOVITER, Chief Judge.

This appeal offers the en banc court the opportunity to attempt to clarify the quantum and nature of evidence that will permit a jury to find that an employer engaged in impermissible employment discrimination. Although we believe that several of our opinions in recent years accurately and adequately set forth the applicable legal principles, the decision of the district court and that of a panel of this court, now withdrawn, require us to return to the central issue presented here.

I.

Barbara Sheridan, a former employee of E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. (DuPont), filed this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-l et seq., charging DuPont and her former supervisor, Jacques Amblard, with several claims of sex discrimination and retaliation. Sheridan, who had been an employee of the Hotel du Pont¹ since 1979 and was at the time her employment ceased one of the Head Captains of the hotel’s Green Room, asserted that DuPont discriminated against her on the basis of her sex when it failed to promote her to Manager of Restaurants in 1991 (Count I), retaliated against her for complaining about sex discrimination by putting her on probation and taking various disciplinary actions against her (Count II), and created intolerable working conditions, culminating in her removal from a supervisory position, which resulted in her constructive discharge (Count III).

After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment which the district court denied. The court held that Sheridan had presented a prima facie' case of discrimination and sufficient evidence to permit a fact-finder to believe that DuPont’s reasons for not promoting her, i.e., that she was not qualified for the position of Manager of Restaurants and that she had not applied for the position, were pretexts for discrimination. App. at 57. The court further held that Sheridan had presented adequate evidence to survive summary judgment on her retaliation claim and to enable a factfinder to reasonably believe that her supervisors had intentionally fabricated evidence of poor job performance in order to remove her from her position as Head Captain and offer her less desirable, dead-end jobs. App. at 68. The court concluded that “[i]f plaintiffs version of the facts were accepted by á trier of fact, it would be reasonable for the trier of fact to conclude that resignation was plaintiffs only option.” Id.

Thereafter, the ease proceeded to trial. The conduct that was the subject of Sheridan’s claims straddled the period before and after November 21, 1991, the date of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub.L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991), which granted a right to a jury trial on Title VII intentional discrimination claims for which compensatory or punitive damages are sought, id. at § 1977A(c), 105 Stat. at 1073 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(c)). The district court ruled that the jury would serve as the finder of fact for Sheridan’s claims that were based on conduct that occurred after that date, but that the jury would serve only in an advisory capacity for claims based on events that occurred before that date. This meant that the jury’s verdicts on Count I (failure to promote) and the alleged retaliatory acts in Count II that occurred before November 21, 1991 were to be advisory, while the jury was to be the finder of fact for the remaining alleged acts of retaliation and with respect to Count III, Sheridan’s claim of constructive discharge.

The trial occupied six days. During the trial, the district court dismissed the claims against Amblard on the ground that an employee cannot be sued under Title VII.

After deliberating, the jury returned special interrogatories. With respect to the promotion claim, the jury found that Sheridan was not qualified for the job of Manager of Restaurants and therefore found against her on her claim of discriminatory failure to promote. With respect to retaliation, the jury found that DuPont had not retaliated against Sheridan for complaining of sex discrimination. In contrast, the jury did find in Sheridan’s favor on her claim of constructive discharge. It awarded her $17,500 in compensatory damages, over and above lost wages, but found that DuPont’s actions were not taken “with malice or reckless indifference” to her rights, App. at 33, thus precluding Sheridan from receiving punitive damages. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (b)(1). Finally, the jury found that Sheridan had failed to mitigate her damages by $33,000, that amount to be deducted from the total amount of lost wages owed. Because the court calculated Sheridan’s lost wages to be $51,072, it awarded her $18,072, in addition to six months of front pay totalling $12,768. The district court adopted as its own the jur/s findings with respect to the conduct alleged in Counts I and II that took place before November 21, 1991.

Both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law or in the alternative for a new trial. The district court granted judgment in DuPont’s favor. The court recognized that DuPont had proffered as one of the principal reasons for the disciplinary actions it had taken against Sheridan her alleged unauthorized “comping,” i.e., giving away complimentary food and drinks in violation of the hotel’s policy that they should be registered, and Sheridan offered evidence to the contrary, indeed, evidence that she was elsewhere on some of the days that DuPont claimed she was engaged in “comping” at the hotel.

In overturning the jury’s verdict on the constructive discharge claim in favor of Sheridan, the court stated that even if the jury could have reasonably rejected the legitimacy of DuPont’s investigation of Sheridan’s alleged “comping,” and thus its reasons for discharging her, “the Court is still left searching the record for evidence that gender played a determinative role in defendant’s conduct_ The Court ... has failed to locate sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer such a finding.” Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., No. 93-46, 1994 WL 828309 at 9 (D.Del. July 14, 1994).² The court ruled that the evidence Sheridan presented which arguably related to her gender, such as the facts that no woman had ever held the position of Manager of Restaurants, that a man replaced Sheridan as Head Captain of the Green Room morning shift, that Amblard had told Sheridan he would watch her like a “hawk” and a “dog,” and Amblard’s actions in ignoring her and speaking instead to one of her male supervisors if one was present, was even in totality insufficient to support a reasonable inference that gender was a motivating factor in DuPont’s actions. Id. at 9-10.

The court stated that “[i]n order to demonstrate that gender was a motivating factor, plaintiff would have to point to some evidence that was the motive of those in the decision making process. No such evidence exists in the record.” Id. at 11-12. The district court accordingly granted DuPont’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and ruled conditionally, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(e), that if the judgment were reversed on appeal, DuPont would be entitled to a new trial “because the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 12 n. 11. Sheridan appealed.³

A panel of this court heard argument on May 4, 1995 and issued an opinion that reversed the district court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law for DuPont on Sheridan’s constructive discharge claim but was divided as to the alternative grant of a new trial, with two judges voting to affirm the grant of a new trial and the third voting to remand the issue whether a new trial was warranted for reconsideration by the district court, using the correct legal principles. See Sheridan v. DuPont, No. 94-7509, 1996 WL 36283 (Jan. 31, 1996), vacated, 74 F.3d 1459 (3d Cir.1996). The majority and dissenting opinions differed in particular in their interpretation of the effect of the Supreme Court’s opinion in St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), on the inferences that the finder of fact may draw from its disbelief of the employer’s proffered justification for the disciplinary employment action taken against Sheridan and the amount and type of evidence needed to sustain a jury verdict.

Both DuPont and Sheridan petitioned for rehearing and the court voted to hear the appeal en banc. As required by our Internal Operating Procedures, the opinion of the panel issued January 31,1996 was withdrawn and the court held the en banc argument on May 14,1996.⁴

II.

DISCUSSION

A.

Legal. Issues

The parties disagree both as to the applicable law and the weight of the evidence. DuPont argues that the district court’s decision in its favor should have been affirmed in all respects. It apparently recognizes that the district court’s finding that Sheridan had not carried her burden of proving that DuPont’s decisions were based on gender discrimination was not consistent with this court’s prior decisions. Thus, DuPont challenges and requests that we reconsider our prior decisions with respect to the “recurring problem of the shifting burdens” in employment discrimination cases, arguing that our decisions do not fully incorporate the teaching of the Supreme Court in Hicks. It singles out in particular the “underlying decision of the Court in [Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir.1994) ].” DuPont’s Petition for Rehearing at 5.

Sheridan for her part argues that we have correctly interpreted Hicks in our post-Hicks decisions with respect to the evidence that would permit a plaintiff claiming employment discrimination to prevail, and cites, inter alia, Fuentes, 32 F.3d 759; Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 2611, 132 L.Ed.2d 854 (1995); Waldron v. SL Industries, 56 F.3d 491 (3d Cir.1995); and Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation, 72 F.3d 326 (3d Cir.1995).

We thus turn, this time en bane, to reexamine what DuPont calls “this continuing and perplexing problem of interpreting the shifting burden of Hicks.”

By the time Hicks reached the Supreme Court, the required components of a plaintiffs prima facie case of employment discrimination had been established in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 & n. 6, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-94 & n. 6, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981),⁵ as had been the requirement that the employer was obliged to proffer a nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment action, see McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. at 1824; Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S.Ct. at 1094. Also established was the requirement that the burden of persuasion remained at all times with the plaintiff. See United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Athens, 460 U.S. 711, 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1482, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983); Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. at 1095. Still open, however, and the subject of considerable dispute, was the effect of the decision by the trier of fact that the reasons given by the employer were not the real reasons for the adverse employment action. As the Court noted in Hicks, there were eases in the courts of appeals that held that a finding of pretext does not mandate a finding of illegal discrimination, see, e.g., EEOC v. Flasher Co., 986 F.2d 1312, 1321 (10th Cir.1992); Galbraith v. Northern Telecom, Inc., 944 F.2d 275, 283 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 945, 112 S.Ct. 1497, 117 L.Ed.2d 637 (1992), and others that held that a finding of illegal discrimination was mandated on a finding of pretext, see, e.g., Hicks v. St. Mary’s Honor Center, 970 F.2d 487, 492-93 (8th Cir.1992), reversed, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); King v. Palmer, 778 F.2d 878, 879 (D.C.Cir.1985); Duffy v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 738 F.2d 1393, 1395-96 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 592, 83 L.Ed.2d 702 (1984).

In Hicks, a case in which the plaintiff had brought a Title VII action alleging that he was demoted and discharged because of his race, the court of appeals had concluded that “[o]nce plaintiff proved all of [the employer’s] proffered reasons for the adverse employment actions to be pretextual, plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 970 F.2d at 492. It was this holding that was reversed by the Supreme Court, which held that judgment for the plaintiff is not compelled by the disbelief of the employer’s reasons. 509 U.S. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. On the other hand, the Court also explicitly stated that a finding that the reasons proffered are pretextual permits the factfinder to draw the inference that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff. Id.

In deciding the “ultimate question” of whether the employer unlawfully discriminated, the Court stated in the following oft-quoted passage that “[t]he factfinder’s disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination.” Id. The Court explained that “rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons, will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination,” and continued: “the Court of Appeals was correct when it noted that, upon such rejection, ‘[n]o additional proof of discrimination is required.’” Id. (emphasis in original) (quoting Hicks, 970 F.2d at 493).⁶

Reading these statements in the context of the Court’s opinion, we have understood Hicks to hold that the elements of the prima facie case and disbelief of the defendant’s proffered reasons are the threshold findings, beyond which the jury is permitted, but not required, to draw an inference leading it to conclude that there was intentional discrimination. Accordingly, in Fuentes we explained that “the factfinder may infer from the combination of the plaintiffs prima facie case and its own rejection of the employer’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff and was merely trying to conceal its illegal act with the articulated reasons.” 32 F.3d at 764. It followed that a plaintiff may survive summary judgment (or in this ease judgment as a matter of law) if the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the employer’s proffered reasons were not its true reasons for the challenged employment action. Id. (“[T]o defeat summary judgment when the defendant answers the plaintiffs prima facie case with legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its action, the plaintiff must point to some evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve the employer’s articulated legitimate reasons; or (2) believe that an invidious discriminatory reason was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the employer’s action.”).

Although we ultimately decided in Fuentes that the plaintiff had failed to submit evidence which cast sufficient doubt on his employer’s proffered reasons for failure to place him in the position that he sought, application of the same approach in some later cases led us to hold that the plaintiff had satisfied his or her burden and raised an issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Thus, in Sempier we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer in an Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) action because Sempier, an executive at an insurance brokerage and consulting firm, had presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the company’s claim that he was forced to retire for poor performance was a pretext for age discrimination. 45 F.3d at 732-33.

Shortly thereafter, in Waldron, another ADEA case, we again held that summary judgment for the employer was improper because the evidence raised a factual question as to whether the employer’s proffered explanations — that it had discharged the 63-year-old plaintiff due to a company reorganization plan and dissatisfaction with his work performance — was an attempt to conceal age discrimination. Waldron, 56 F.3d at 502-03. We viewed the district court’s holding as requiring plaintiffs to bear the burden of demonstrating “pretext-plus,” a burden we had explicitly rejected in Fuentes. Id. at 495.

In Brewer, we again cited Fuentes for the proposition that a plaintiff will survive summary judgment if s/he can produce sufficient evidence that the employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action was not the true reason. 72 F.3d at 331. Finding the evidence in Brewer’s case sufficient to permit a jury to believe that the employer’s claim of poor performance by the 53-year-old salesman was pretextual, we reversed the district court’s entry of summary judgment on Brewer’s ADEA claim. Id.

The majority of other federal courts of appeals appear to have interpreted Hicks in a similar manner to this court’s precedent. See, e.g., Shaw v. HCA Health Servs. of Midwest, Inc., 79 F.3d 99, 100 (8th Cir.1996) (where defendant did not dispute that plaintiff made out a prima facie case and there was evidence that defendant had altered performance evaluations of plaintiff after firing him, “jury was entitled (although not required) to conclude ... that the reasons given by the hospital for firing [plaintiff] were a pretext for age discrimination”); Barbour v. Merrill, 48 F.3d 1270, 1277 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“As Hicks explained, a factfinder’s rejection of the employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons, while not sufficient to compel a finding of discrimination, nonetheless suffices to permit such a finding.”), cert. dismissed, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 1037, 134 L.Ed.2d 113 (1996); EEOC v. Ethan Allen, Inc., 44 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir.1994) (“A finding of pretextuality allows a juror to reject a defendant’s proffered reasons for a challenged employment action and thus permits the ultimate inference of discrimination.”); Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co., 29 F.3d 1078, 1083 (6th Cir.1994) (“Hicks clarified that the only effect of the employer’s nondiscriminatory explanation is to convert the inference of discrimination based upon the plaintiffs pri-ma facie case from a mandatory one'which the jury must draw, to a permissive one the jury may draw, provided that the jury finds the employer’s explanation ‘unworthy’ of belief.”); Anderson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 13 F.3d 1120, 1124 (7th Cir.1994) (to defeat summary judgment, Title VII plaintiff “must only ‘produce evidence from which a rational factfinder could infer that the company lied’ about its proffered reasons for his dismissal” (citation omitted)); Mitchell v. Data Gen. Corp., 12 F.3d 1310, 1316 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiff can defeat summary judgment by “presenting] evidence' sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and ... showing] that there is a genuine dispute of material fact about [the defendant’s] proffered explanation” for its action); Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1433 (9th Cir.1993) (“[A]s St. Mary’s recognizes, the factfinder in a Title VII case is entitled to infer discrimination from plaintiffs proof of a prima facie case and showing of pretext without anything more... .”).⁷

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the government agency charged with enforcement of the employment discrimination laws and an amicus curiae in this case, has also taken the view “that a prima facie ease, coupled with a non-credible justification from the employer, is sufficient to support a finding of discrimination.” EEOC Enforcement Guidance on St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, EEOC Comp.Man. (BNA), N:3361, 3363 n. 3 (Apr. 12, 1994). “As an administrative interpretation of the Act by the enforcing agency, these Guidelines, while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.” Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2404, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986)(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The attack by DuPont and the dissent on the paradigm we and these other courts have constructed in the wake of Hicks is multifaceted. DuPont suggests that there is an inconsistency between this court’s caselaw, as applied or articulated, and the requirement that the ultimate burden of persuasion of intentional discrimination must rest with the plaintiff. We find no such inconsistency. More important, the Supreme Court itself in Hicks expressly stated that its various statements in that opinion as to the burden that plaintiff must bear, i.e. “it is not enough ... to disbelieve the employer,” 509 U.S. at 519, 113 S.Ct. at 2754, and the plaintiff must show “both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason,” id. at 515, 113 S.Ct. at 2752, were not inconsistent with the statement in the opinion that “rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of intentional discrimination,” id. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749. Hicks explained that the statement that “rejection of the defendant’s proffered reasons is enough at law to sustain a finding of discrimination” was not inconsistent with its placement of the burden of persuasion on the plaintiff because “there must he a finding óf discrimination.” Id. at 511 n. 4, 113 S.Ct. at 2749 n. 4 (emphasis throughout discussion in original). Thus, the Supreme Court has answered the very claim of inconsistency DuPont purports to find in our interpretation of Hicks.

Similarly unpersuasive is the dissent’s suggestion that Fuentes impermissibly gives continuing weight to the presumption of discrimination created by the prima facie case even after the McDonnell Douglas presumption has dissipated or “burst.” This argument is based on the mistaken assumption that once the presumption of discrimination created initially by the prima facie case “drops from the case,” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. at 1095 n. 10, the underlying facts lose their probative value. However, the Supreme Court specifically explained in Burdine that “[i]n saying that the presumption [of discrimination] drops from the case, we do not imply that the trier of fact no longer may consider evidence previously introduced by the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case.... [T]his evidence and inferences properly drawn therefrom may be considered by the trier of fact on the issue of whether the defendant’s explanation is pretextual.” Id. As long as the jury must make a finding of intentional discrimination, there is no reason why the evidence that supported the prima facie case coupled with the jury’s determination that the employer’s proffered explanations are pretextual is not sufficient to support a verdict of discrimination.

As Chief Justice, then Justice, Rehnquist earlier had explained, the initial presumption of discrimination arises from the plaintiffs prima facie ease of discrimination “because we presume these acts, if otherwise unexplained, are more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors.” Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949-50, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978). He continued:

[W]e are willing to presume this largely because we know from our experience that more often than not people do not act in a totally arbitrary manner, without any underlying reasons, especially in a business setting. Thus, when all legitimate reasons for rejecting an applicant have been eliminated as possible reasons for the employer’s actions, it is more likely than not the employer, who we generally assume acts only with some reason, based his decision on an impermissible consideration such as race.

Id.

This court has previously noted the probative significance of the factfinder’s disbelief in a proffered explanation by a party, stating:

It has always been understood — the inference indeed is one of the simplest in human experience — that a party’s falsehood or other fraud in the preparation and presentation of his cause, his fabrication or suppression of evidence by bribery or spoliation, is receivable against him as an indication of his consciousness that his ease is a weak or unfounded one; and from that consciousness may be inferred the fact itself of the cause’s lack of truth and merit.

McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 921-22 (3d Cir.1985) (quoting 2 Wigmore § 278(2) (Chadbourne Rev. 1979)). As another court recently remarked in the context of an employment discrimination ease: “Resort to a pretextual explanation is, like flight from the scene of a crime, evidence indicating consciousness of guilt, which is, of course, evidence of illegal conduct.” Binder v. Long Island Lighting Co., 57 F.3d 193, 200 (2d Cir.1995).

We presume that the same logic, albeit unarticulated, was the basis for the Supreme Court’s statement in Hicks that disbelief of the employer’s reason will permit the factfinder to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination, 509 U.S. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749, even though the presumption of discrimination “drops from the ease” after the employer proffers a legitimate reason for its actions, Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. at 1095 n. 10.

We routinely expect that a party give honest testimony in a court of law; there is no reason to expect less of an employer charged with unlawful discrimination. If the employer fails to come forth with the true and credible explanation and instead keeps a hidden agenda, it does so at its own peril. Under those circumstances, there is no policy to be served by refusing to permit the jury to infer that the real motivation is the one that the plaintiff has charged.

The dissent concedes that in the usual case after the presumption created by the prima facie ease has dissipated and sufficient evidence of pretext has been adduced, there will be sufficient evidence to support a verdict of discrimination. The dissent is concerned that in the atypical case this may not be so. It posits the situation of a plaintiff who claims multiple grounds, all illegal, for the employment action. We see no reason to engage in a dialogue of speculation as to how to treat such a case, divorced from a factual record, particularly because the situation presented by the dissent was not the case in Hicks, where the plaintiff claimed race discrimination, was not the case in Fuentes, where the plaintiff claimed national origin discrimination, nor is it the case before us now, where Sheridan claims only sex discrimination.

The other situation posited by the dissent for its unwillingness to join the otherwise unanimous en banc court is that created where an employer “may not wish to disclose his real reasons for not promoting B over A.” Dissenting Op. at 1086 n. 8. The persistence in maintaining that the employment action was taken because the plaintiff was unqualified or the position was being eliminated due to a reduction in force when the employer knows that the real reason is nepotism would violate the spirit if not the language of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The dissent gives no reason why a plaintiff alleging discrimination is not entitled to the real reason for the personnel decision, no matter how uncomfortable the truth may be to the employer. Surely, the judicial system has little to gain by the dissent’s approach.

The Supreme Court has stated that an employer can meet its burden of articulating the reason for its action only through the introduction of admissible evidence. Bur-dine, 450 U.S. at 255 n. 9,101 S.Ct. at 1094 n. 9. Burden-shifting is designed “to sharpen the inquiry into the elusive factual question of intentional discrimination.” Id. at 255 n. 8, 101 S.Ct. at 1094 n. 8. It follows that the Burdine analysis is rooted in the requirement that when the employer advances through admissible evidence the reasons for its actions, those must be its legitimate reasons.

The dissent argues that mere disbelief of the employer’s articulated reason is not enough to sustain a verdict. Of course Hicks did not rely merely on the factfinder’s disbelief of the explanation proffered by the employer to uphold a verdict for the employee. Instead, as we have noted, under Hicks it is the combination of the disbelief in the employer’s proffered explanation, the evidence that supported finding a prima facie case, and the jury’s finding of intentional discrimination following a proper instruction to that effect.

Although the dissent states at the outset that its approach “does not mean that a plaintiff, in order to reach the trier of fact, must always prove ‘pretext plus, ’ i.e., that the plaintiff must always produce some evidence in addition to what is necessary to establish a prima facie case and to show that the employer’s explanation is pretextual,” Dissenting Op. at 1078 (emphasis added), the dissent’s approach would bring the courts of this circuit back to the confusion and uncertainty created by the “pretext plus” and “some evidence” language that prompted this court to consider this case en banc.

In Sheridan’s case, the district court had reviewed the evidence presented in connection with DuPont’s motion for summary judgment and found that Sheridan had made out a prima facie case for gender discrimination culminating in constructive discharge.

Also, the district court had carefully instructed the jury on the need to find intentional discrimination before it could return a verdict for Sheridan on any of her claims. Early in its charge the court had advised the jury that this case involves “allegations of intentional sexual discrimination, that is, of intentionally treating some people less favorably than others because of their gender.” App. at 111. Again, in connection with the constructive discharge count the court had reminded the jury that Sheridan must prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that 1) defendant intentionally made plaintiffs working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign; 2) plaintiffs gender was the sole motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct; and 3) plaintiff, in fact, resigned.” App. at 123. The jury’s verdict signifies that it rejected DuPont’s proffered reasons for its employment action and believed that the real reason was discrimination.

In granting judgment as a matter of law for DuPont, the district court stated that “plaintiff would have to point to some evidence ” that gender was the motive of those in the decision-making process. It is evident that the district court believed that something more was required than was set forth in Hicks and our cases. Not only was such a requirement of additional evidence rejected in Fuentes where we stated that “if the plaintiff has pointed to evidence sufficiently to discredit the defendant’s proffered reasons, to survive summary judgment the plaintiff need not also come forward with additional evidence of discrimination beyond his or her prima facie case,” 32 F.3d at 764, but it is also inconsistent with the statement in Hicks that upon rejection of the defendants’ proffered reasons for the action, “no additional proof of discrimination is required.” 509 U.S. at 511, 113 S.Ct. at 2749 (internal quotation marks omitted).

As the Supreme Court has noted, “[tjhere will seldom be ‘eyewitness’ testimony as to the employer’s mental processes.” United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1482, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). We have recognized that “[discrimination victims often come to the legal process without witnesses and with little direct evidence indicating the precise nature of the wrongs they have suffered.” Jackson v. University of Pittsburgh, 826 F.2d 230, 236 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 732, 98 L.Ed.2d 680 (1988). Cases charging discrimination are uniquely difficult to prove and often depend upon circumstantial evidence. See, e.g., Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1081-82 (3d Cir.1996); Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 879 F.2d 43, 48 (3d Cir.1989); Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893, 897 (3d Cir.) (en banc) cert. dismissed, 483 U.S. 1052, 108 S.Ct. 26, 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987); Dillon v. Coles, 746 F.2d 998, 1003 (3d Cir.1984). “This is true in part because ... discrimination ... is often subtle.” Chipollini 814 F.2d at 899. “[A]n employer who knowingly discriminates ... may leave no written records revealing the forbidden motive and may communicate it orally to no one.” Id. (quoting LaMontagne v. American Convenience Prods., 750 F.2d 1405, 1410 (7th Cir.1984)).

The distinct method of proof in employment discrimination cases, relying on presumptions and shifting burdens of articulation and production, arose out of the Supreme Court’s recognition that direct evidence of an employer’s motivation will often be unavailable or difficult to acquire. See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 271, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 1801-02, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (“[T]he entire purpose of the McDonnell Douglas prima facie ease is to compensate for the fact that direct evidence of intentional discrimination is hard to come by.”); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121, 105 S.Ct. 613, 621-22, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (“The shifting burdens of proof set forth in McDonnell Douglas are designed to assure that the plaintiff has his day in court despite the unavailability of direct evidence.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 359 n. 45, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1867 n. 45, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977) (recognizing that burden-shifting rules “are often created ... to conform with a party’s superior access to the proof’); Chipollini 814 F.2d at 897; Dillon, 746 F.2d at 1003.

Thus, it is not only disbelief in the employer’s proffered reason that would suffice to sustain the plaintiffs case, as the dissent argues. It is the jury’s determination that the reason given was pretextual together with the evidence that supported the prima facie case that will sustain a finding of intentional discrimination made after a proper charge.

The role of determining whether the inference of discrimination is warranted must remain within the province of the jury, because a finding of discrimination is at bottom a determination of intent. In making that finding, the jury must perform its traditional function of assessing the weight of the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses through observation of both direct testimony and cross-examination at trial, and the strength of the inferences that can be drawn from the elements of the prima facie case and the evidence that undermines the employer’s proffered reasons for its actions. This is uniquely the role of the factfinder, not the court. See Barber v. CSX Distribution Servs., 68 F.3d 694, 700 (3d Cir.1995)(“Evalu-ation of witness credibility is the exclusive function of the jury, and where the only evidence of intent is oral testimony, a jury could always choose to discredit it.”) (quoting Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 832 F.2d 258, 262 (3d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 782, 102 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989)); see also Aikens, 460 U.S. at 716, 103 S.Ct. at 1482 (“It is true that it is very difficult to prove what the state of a man’s mind at a particular time is, but if it can be ascertained it is as much a fact as anything else.”) (quoting Edgington v. Fitzmaurice, 29 Ch. Div. 459, 483 (1885)); Chipollini 814 F.2d at 899 (“The issue of the defendant’s intent at the time of the plaintiffs discharge is clearly a factual question.”).

This does not mean that the courts in discrimination cases lose their traditional obligation, when faced with, a motion for judgment as a matter of law, to review the adequacy of the showing presented to the factfinder. The district court must determine whether the plaintiff has east sufficient doubt upon the employer’s proffered reasons to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the reasons are incredible, and our previous eases have explained in detail the plaintiffs burden in this regard. See, e.g., Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764-65 (“[T]he non-moving plaintiff must demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a-reasonable factfinder could rationally find them ‘unworthy of credence ....’” (quoting Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 531 (3d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 826, 114 S.Ct. 88, 126 L.Ed.2d 56 (1993))). But once the court is satisfied that the evidence meets this threshold requirement, it may not pretermit the jury’s ability to draw inferences from the testimony, including the inference of intentional discrimination drawn from an unbelievable reason proffered by the employer.

With these legal principles before us, we turn to the district court’s order granting judgment for DuPont as a matter of law on Sheridan’s jury verdict that she was constructively discharged as a result of discrimination. We exercise plenary review of the district court’s order granting DuPont’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Seman v. Coplay Cement Co., 26 F.3d 428, 431 (3d Cir.1994).

B.

Factual Issues

We need not recount all of the evidence adduced at the trial because we examine the record with the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there was sufficient evidence to withstand judgment as a matter of law. In doing so, we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to Sheridan, the verdict winner, and draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. See Hofkin v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 365, 369 (3d Cir.1996).

At the time of the events that formed the basis of this case, Sheridan was one of five head captains at the hotel, occupying the position of Head Captain of the Green Room for the breakfast and lunch shifts. Sheridan, who began working at the hotel as a part-time waitress in 1979, reached that supervisory position in 1989 following a series of steady promotions. In addition to those promotions, Sheridan had received numerous commendations for her job performance.

Focusing on the period immediately before that at issue, there was evidence that in May 1989 Sheridan was nominated by her peers and received an “Employee of the Quarter Award” for “outstanding” work. She received merit raises in May 1990 and February 1991. In July 1990 she received a “Way to Go” award from the Personnel & Administrative Services Division for “going beyond the call of duty.” DuPont’s October 29, 1990 performance review, signed by two supervisors including defendant Jacques Amblard, rated Sheridan overall “very good,” the second highest rating. She was rated “outstanding” for “Interpersonal Relationships,” “Planning/Organizing,” and “Problem-Solving.” Although that report noted that “[a]s a team player, strengthening is needed to improve the overall relationship with the rest of the operation,” the report listed one of her strengths as “[v]ery good guest relations, organized.” The report stated that “Barbara’s persistence has paid off by guest loyalty, staff does not call off sick, and overall very good morale from the support team.” Even Sheridan’s lowest mark, given for “Attendance/Punetuality/Dependability,” was “Satisfactory.” App. at 197-98.

In December 1990, Sheridan won a $1,000 accomplishment award. The letter informing her of the award referred to her as “a role model” and “a true ambassador for the company.” App. at 151. Other restaurant employees received awards ranging from $200-$500, but Sheridan was the only employee to receive an award as high as $1000. App. at 287. In January 1991, Sheridan was chosen as one of about 20 DuPont employees to appear in a company video. App. at 734. On October 1, 1991, Sheridan received a promotion and salary increase.

DuPont attempted to paint a different picture to the jury. Notwithstanding the record evidence of promotions and commendations, it contended that Sheridan’s performance began to deteriorate in early 1991. DuPont produced evidence that supervisors met with Sheridan, expressed dissatisfactions, and directed her to improve in various categories. For example, in February 1991, Ed Barba, then the Green Room’s Manager, listed “corrective measures” that Sheridan should take, including “maintaining an accurate cover count sheet” to insure that “covers” (customers) were distributed fairly among the staff, following the “grooming policy” which required that she report to work on time and in full dress, and refraining from using the Green Room as a break room and for smoking. App. at 228. Nicholas Waller testified that in the summer of 1991, as Manager of Restaurants, he met with Sheridan to discuss alleged complaints that Sheridan had asked Green Room employees to help her with personal tasks, such as parking her ear, giving her a wake-up. call, or taking her personal mail to the post office, and that she had rewarded employees who complied by giving them additional “covers” in the dining room. App. at 960-63.

On October 17, 1991, Jeff Maisel, by then the Manager of Restaurants, met with Sheridan to discuss problems allegedly perceived with her performance, including tardiness and continuing disregard for the hotel’s grooming policy. App. at 206, 885. On November 10, 1991, Maisel placed Sheridan on probation, ostensibly on the ground that she had not corrected her performance. Maisel warned Sheridan that her failure to follow the hotel’s policies could result in her termination. App. at 208.

In support of its claim of Sheridan’s inadequate performance, DuPont introduced various notes and records that DuPont had compiled of specific infractions by Sheridan. Illustrative of DuPont’s complaints is a memo by Barba to the file that on one occasion he had observed Sheridan smoking in the Green Room Bar and putting on makeup. A report meticulously listed other details to support placing Sheridan on probation.⁸ DuPont contended that even while Sheridan was on probation, she continued her inadequate performance.⁹

An important part of DuPont’s defense for its employment actions centered on its claim that Sheridan had engaged in “comping,” i.e., giving away complimentary food and drinks without ringing up complimentary checks. The hotel began investigating Sheridan for this activity in late February, 1992, and its record of the investigation lists statements of numerous co-workers. App. at 222-26. James Dougherty, a bartender who was one of DuPont’s principal witnesses on “comping,” reported to DuPont that due to his concerns about numerals “discrepancies” and “cash handling problems” with Sheridan, he began to keep track of the amount of free liquor Sheridan gave away. He recorded that it totaled $921.75 from November 1, 1991 to February 18, 1992, with $417.25 worth of drinks given away in December alone. App. at 222. Dougherty testified at trial that each time he saw Sheridan serve a free drink, he would record the date and dollar amount of the drink, and claimed that his dates were about “98-percent accurate.” App. at 688.

Maisel testified that based on the hotel’s internal investigation, DuPont decided that Sheridan should be reassigned to a non-supervisory position that would not require her to handle cash. App. at 910. Sheridan was offered three options: front desk receptionist, banquet server, or health club attendant, with no diminution of salary. The hotel claimed that she would be eligible for advancement in any of those positions, although Sheridan offered evidence at trial that suggested otherwise. See App. at 473-75, 776. After considering the offer for some weeks, Sheridan resigned.

Sheridan’s testimony at trial portrayed the events differently than did DuPont. It was her position that the alleged dissatisfaction with her performance stemmed from her complaint of sex discrimination which she made in the fall of 1991, when the hotel reorganized its structure to eliminate the individual restaurant managers and to place a new manager over all of the restaurants in the hotel. The hotel did not advertise the position, considered only five of its own employees for the new post (all men), and selected Maisel. DuPont did not consider Sheridan for the position, id., and Sheridan complained to Amblard at least three times in the period of September and October 1991 that she was not promoted due to gender discrimination. App. at 51-52. She also testified that around this time, Amblard told her repeatedly that he planned to watch her “like a dog” and “like a hawk.” App. at 748'. Sheridan’s position was that the hotel’s recordkeeping of details of her daily activity was “nitpicking” in retaliation for her complaints of sex discrimination. App. at 1337. She further sought to portray Amblard as a sexist and testified that, when she was with one of the other male supervisors, he would ignore her and instead speak only to the man. App. at 748.

In addition to the affirmative evidence of her own accomplishments, Sheridan presented evidence at trial that was directed to impeaching the credibility of DuPont’s witnesses, particularly, but not limited to, Dougherty and Maisel. Sheridan demonstrated that for two weeks in January 1992, during which Dougherty listed three dates when she allegedly dispensed free drinks, she had reported for jury duty at the Superi- or Court. App. at 173-79, 540-13. Even a document handwritten by Maisel showed that another head captain was scheduled to cover Sheridan’s shift on those days. App. at 167. Maisel’s schedule also indicated that Sheridan was not scheduled for work on December 23 and 24, 1991, although Dougherty’s list included these dates among those when Sheridan allegedly required him to deliver complimentary drinks. App. at 167, 227, 540. In fact, Maisel’s written work schedule could be viewed as contradicting Dougherty’s list as to seven separate dates.

In seeking to show the pretextual nature of DuPont’s articulated reasons, Sheridan noted, inter alia, the temporal proximity of her complaints to Amblard of sex discrimination and his statements that he would watch her like a “hawk” to the subsequent surfacing of dissatisfaction with her performance, the meticulous recordkeeping of the details of her daily activities, and the hotel’s investigations into her alleged “comping.”

Thus, it is clear that the jury in this case was faced with evidence on both sides of the issues raised by the parties. The jury’s verdict for Sheridan on her constructive discharge claim shows that the jury accepted Sheridan’s view on this claim and rejected DuPont’s explanation as pretextual.

We have previously cautioned that “[i]n determining whether the evidence is suffi-, eient to sustain liability, the court may not weigh the evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or substitute its version of the facts for the jury’s version.” Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1166 (3d Cir.1993). A reasonable jury could have disbelieved DuPont’s proffered reasons for its actions based on Sheridan’s evidence and its rejection of the credibility of certain of DuPont’s principal witnesses, such as Dough-erty and Maisel. We find no paucity of evidence on which the jury could have based its finding for Sheridan on her constructive discharge claim.

Under the applicable law, a plaintiff who voluntarily resigned may maintain a case of constructive discharge when the employer’s allegedly discriminatory conduct creates an atmosphere that is the constructive equivalent of a discharge. See Gray v. York Newspapers, Inc., 957 F.2d 1070, 1079 (3d Cir.1992). We apply an objective test to determine whether “the employer knowingly permitted conditions of discrimination in employment so intolerable that a reasonable person subject to them would resign.” Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1084 (3d Cir.1996) (quoting Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co., 747 F.2d 885, 888 (3d Cir.1984)).

In denying DuPont’s motion for summary judgment, the district court rejected DuPont’s argument that there was no basis on which a jury could find that the conditions to which Sheridan claimed she was subjected could have reached the level that would constitute a constructive discharge. Instead, the court held that if Sheridan’s version of the facts were accepted by a trier of fact, it would be reasonable for the trier of fact to conclude that resignation was Sheridan’s only option. Thus, when the court instructed the jury, it charged that for the jury to find that DuPont constructively discharged Sheridan, she must have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that DuPont “intentionally made [her] working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign” and that “[Sheridan’s] gender was the sole motivating factor in the defendant’s conduct.” App. at 1487.

The evidence of the series of investigative activities, allegations of improprieties, placement on probation after more than a decade of satisfactory performance, and the ultimate removal of Sheridan from her supervisory position in the highly reputed Green Room to one of three far less prestigious dead-end positions, such as the health club attendant, could have been viewed by the jury as meeting the criteria of a constructive discharge. The jury returned an unqualified verdict finding that DuPont had constructively dis-‘ charged Sheridan and did so based on her gender. We cannot hold that Sheridan failed to present sufficient evidence to withstand DuPont’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, and therefore will reverse the district court’s order to that effect. •

C.

Grant of a New Trial

Because the district court’s ruling focused primarily on its decision to grant DuPont’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court’s explanation for its grant of a new trial was brief. The court noted in a footnote that it was obliged under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(c) to make a conditional ruling on the defendant’s motion for a new trial. To comply with that requirement, the court stated merely that it “would grant the motion for a new trial because the jury’s verdict is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” Sheridan (July 14, 1994), 1994 WL 828309 at 12 n. 11.

We are unable to ascertain the extent to which this ruling was affected by the court’s misconception that direct evidence of discriminatory intent was necessary to sustain the jury’s verdict, i.e., its understanding that “[i]n order to demonstrate that gender was a motivating factor, plaintiff would have to point to some evidence that that was the motive of those in the decision-making process.” Id. at 11-12. Because such evidence is not a prerequisite to a finding of intentional discrimination, we believe the district court should reconsider whether a new trial is warranted in light of the correct legal principles.

It is also unclear whether the district court applied the complete test for ruling on a new trial motion. In granting that motion, the district court merely concluded that the jury’s verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. Although we recognize that a new trial may be granted even if the evidence is legally sufficient to support the verdict, Roebuck, v. Drexel Univ., 852 F.2d 715, 735-36 (3d Cir.1988), we have nonetheless cautioned that a district court should grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence “only where a miscarriage of justice would result if the verdict were to stand,” Williamson v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 926 F.2d 1344, 1352 (3d Cir.1991). We have explained that this stringent standard is necessary “to ensure that a district court does not substitute its ‘judgment of the facts and the credibility of the witnesses for that of the jury. Such an action effects a denigration of the jury system and to the extent that new trials are granted the judge takes over, if he does not usurp, the prime function of the jury as the trier of facts.’” Fineman v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 980 F.2d 171, 211 (3d Cir.1992) (quoting Lind v. Schenley Indus. Inc., 278 F.2d 79, 90 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert denied, 364 U.S. 835, 81 S.Ct. 58, 5 L.Ed.2d 60 (1960)), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 921, 113 S.Ct. 1285,122 L.Ed.2d 677 (1993).

Therefore, before imposing on Sheridan the burden and expense of a new trial, we will remand to require the district court to determine whether, inasmuch as Sheridan was not obliged to produce direct evidence of discriminatory intent, the jury’s verdict for Sheridan was against the great weight of the evidence and would effect a miscarriage of justice.

We have previously remarked that the district court’s instruction to the jury placed on Sheridan a higher burden of proof than our cases require. See note 2, supra. If there were a new trial, Sheridan would not have to prove that discrimination was the sole cause of DuPont’s action but only that discrimination was a motivating factor in its decision. See Miller v. CIGNA Corp., 47 F.3d 586 (3d Cir.1995) (en banc).

Sheridan has raised other trial errors to support her motion for a new trial, but we need consider briefly only one. Sheridan argues that the district court erred in excluding testimony of a female co-worker that Amblard stated, after watching a woman in a tight dress walk by, that he “would like to grab that,” App. at 699-700,1520, and that on another occasion Amblard rejected her offer to park cars at the hotel on the ground that she could not park cars because she was a woman. App. at 1521. The district court excluded this testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, finding these statements “prejudicial and irrelevant.” App. at 44. We review a district court’s rulings concerning the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion. Glass v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 34 F.3d 188, 191 (3d Cir.1994).¹⁰ Although Amblard’s comments would be relevant to determining whether he was biased against women generally and therefore the district court took too narrow a view in holding that they had no probative value, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in deciding that Amblard’s statements were more prejudicial than probative of the ultimate issue of whether DuPont’s employment actions as to Sheridan were caused by gender-based animus. We turn then to the final issue before us,¹¹ the court’s dismissal of Amblará as a defendant.

D.

Individual Liability Under Title VII

Sheridan contends that the district court erred in dismissing Jacques Amblará as a defendant on the ground that individual employees may not be held liable under Title VII.

Title VII provides, in relevant part:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin....

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (emphasis added). The statute defines “employer” as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees ... and any agent of such a person.” Id. § 2000e(b).

Sheridan argues that there is no language in the statute excluding individuals, and she looks to the law of agency to support the proposition that agents can be held jointly liable with employers for wrongs resulting from their tortious conduct. She also contends that we should interpret the 1991 amendments, which added to the remedies provided in Title VII a provision for compensatory and punitive damages, as suggesting that Congress intended to hold individual defendants liable because, unlike equitable remedies such as reinstatement which are uniquely available from an employer, these newly available monetary remedies can be forthcoming from an employee.

These arguments are not without some force. However, the clear majority of the courts of appeals that have considered this question have held that individual employees cannot be held liable under Title VII. See Williams v. Banning, 72 F.3d 552 (7th Cir.1995); Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1313-17 (2d Cir.1995); Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1399 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 569, 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995); Grant v. Lone Star Co., 21 F.3d 649 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 574, 130 L.Ed.2d 491 (1994); Miller v. Maxwell’s Int’l Inc., 991 F.2d 583, 587-88 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1109, 114 S.Ct. 1049, 127 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994). Others appear to lean in that direction, see, e.g., Lenhardt v. Basic Inst, of Technology, Inc., 55 F.3d 377 (8th Cir.1995) (interpreting parallel state statute to preclude employee liability); Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507, 510-511 & n. 1 (4th Cir.) (deciding issue under ADEA as to “personnel decisions of a plainly delegable character”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 666, 130 L.Ed.2d 600 (1994), while others have either permitted liability in an employee’s official capacity only, see Cross v. Alabama, 49 F.3d 1490, 1504 (11th Cir.1995); Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America, 28 F.3d 446, 451 n. 2 (5th Cir.1994), or left the issue an “open question,” Ball v. Renner, 54 F.3d 664, 668 (10th Cir.1995).

In our independent examination of this issue, we find most significant the fact that when Congress amended the statute in 1991 to provide a detailed sliding scale of damages ranging from $50,000 for an employer of more than 14 and fewer than 101 employees, to $300,000 for employers with more than 500 employees, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3), it made no reference as to the amount of damages, if any, that would be .payable by individuals. This strongly suggests that Congress did not contemplate that such damages would be assessed against individuals who are not themselves the employing entity. See Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1315; Maxwell’s, 991 F.2d at 587 n. 2; Ascolese v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 902 F.Supp. 533, 540 (E.D.Pa.1995), modified on other grounds, 925 F.Supp. 351 (1996).

Moreover, we note that Congress had previously expressed its concern about the impact of Title VII litigation on small businesses when it excluded businesses with fewer than fifteen employees from the definition of an “employer.” It is reasonable to infer that Congress’s concern in that regard applies as well to individuals. See Williams, 72 F.3d at 553; Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1314 (citing remarks of legislators indicating concern with burdens imposed upon small businesses forced to defend against Title VII suits); Miller, 991 F.2d at 587.

For these reasons, as well as some of the others cited by the other circuits, we are persuaded that Congress did not intend to hold individual employees hable under Title VII.

III.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the district court’s entry of judgment in DuPont’s favor on the constructive discharge claim, and remand to the district court to reconsider DuPont’s motion for a new trial.

1

. Quixotically, the hotel is not capitalized as is the name of the company. To avoid confusion, we will nonetheless refer to the hotel and the defendant interchangeably as DuPont.

2

. The district court instructed the jury that it was required to find that Sheridan’s gender was the . sole cause of her constructive discharge, and the jury apparently found that this standard had been met. After the trial, we held in Miller v. CIGNA Corp., 47 F.3d 586, 597 (3d Cir.1995) (en banc), that a plaintiff need show only that discrimination was a determinative cause, as opposed to the sole cause, of the employer's challenged action. In ruling on DuPont's motion for judgment as a matter of law, the district court held that the evidence of gender discrimination in Sheridan's case was insufficient even under the Miller standard.

3

. Sheridan does not challenge the jury's finding as to her lack of qualifications for the promotion to Manager of Restaurants that was the subject of her Count I. Thus that claim is no longer in issue.

4

. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, and the National Employment Lawyers Association, all filed briefs as amicus curiae in support of Sheridan’s position. Lockheed Martin Corporation filed an amicus brief in support of DuPont.

5

. To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge a Tide VII plaintiff must show (1) that she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position, (3) she was discharged, and (4) the position was ultimately filled by a person not of the protected class. See, e.g., Waldron v. SL Industries, 56 F.3d 491, 494 (3d Cir.1995) (citing McDonnell Douglas and Burdine).

6

. It is not without significance that the four dissenting justices in Hicks did not take issue with the majority’s acceptance of the sufficiency of a rejected pretext to demonstrate discrimination. Instead, the dissenters would have gone further and construed Burdine to hold that once the factfinder rejected the employer’s proffered reason, a finding of discrimination for the plaintiff was compelled. See 509 U.S. at 532-33, 113 S.Ct. at 2760-61 (Souter, J., dissenting).

7

. It is of interest that of the four cases from other circuits cited by the dissent as "strong contrary authority,” in three the actual holding was that the plaintiff "failed to present sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable factfinder to infer that [the defendant’s] articulated reason was a pretext for unlawful ... discrimination.” Woods v. Friction Materials, Inc., 30 F.3d 255, 262 (1st Cir.1994); see also LeBlanc v. Great American Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 845 (1st Cir.1993) ("We conclude ... that a reasonable factfinder could not infer pretext or age discrimination from these circumstances.”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1398, 128 L.Ed.2d 72 (1994); Isenbergh v. Knight-Ridder Newspaper Sales, Inc., 97 F.3d 436 (11th Cir.1996) ("Our examination of the record here indicates that Isenbergh failed in creating an issue of fact about the dis-believability of the employer’s reason for the hiring decision”). In Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools, 75 F.3d 989 (5th Cir.1996), which adopts an analysis of Hicks that runs counter to the majority of circuits, the court nonetheless found that based on the evidence that the reason given by the employer was false, “the juiy was entitled to find that the reasons given for [plaintiff's] discharge were pretexts for age discrimination" and ”[v]iewing this evidence in the light most favorable to [plaintiff], a reasonable jury could have found that [the employer] discriminated against [the plaintiff] on the basis of his age.” Id. at 996.

8

. These included, for example, for a short period in 1991: Oct. 20: Sheridan arrived at work 45 minutes late and without her makeup on, in violation of grooming policy; Oct. 22: reported to work 25 minutes late; Oct. 23: reported to work 20 minutes late; Nov. 3: was 17 minutes late, and not wearing makeup; Nov. 3: Sheridan was observed with another employee in the company van during a staff meeting; Nov. 7: Sheridan was seen eating and smoking in the Green Room Bar with another employee during service hours. App. at 206.

9

. Specifically, DuPont contends that in February 1992, Sheridan spoke rudely at a staff meeting to Joe Marshall, the Room and Service Head Captain. It also presented evidence that once when Sheridan was asked to work on a Sunday, she initially refused, but then agreed to work, although she allegedly told Maisel that "[s]he felt after 13 years she deserved to work Monday-Friday.” App. at 220.

10

. We are concerned that the district court failed to make explicit its reasoning under Rule 403, but we regard the required Rule 403 balancing as implicit in its ruling and therefore apparent from the record. See United States v. Himelwright, 42 F.3d 777, 781 (3d Cir.1994). We note that we will not do so routinely, and expect that the requirements of the Federal Rules will be followed by the courts in this circuit. Should there be a new trial, the district court will have the opportunity to reconsider this ruling.

11

. Sheridan has failed to preserve her claim that other testimony by another co-worker was improperly excluded. We also reject her claim based on defense counsel's use of a peremptory strike allegedly based in part on the age of a 68-year-old black member of the jury venire and her claim that defense counsel improperly vouched for the credibility of certain witnesses during closing argument to the jury,