<Dl> <Dd> (i) The plaintiff is a member of a protected class . </Dd> <Dd> (ii) The plaintiff applied and was qualified for the job . </Dd> <Dd> (iii) The application was rejected . </Dd> <Dd> (iv) The position remained open after the rejection . </Dd> <Dd> St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 505 - 507 . In a termination case, the second element is whether the plaintiff was performing up to the employer's legitimate expectations . </Dd> <Dd> "The burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous ." Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 . Establishment of a prima facie case creates an inference that the employer acted with discriminatory intent . Id . at 254 . Although establishing a prima facie case used to be fairly routine, the courts have begun scrutinizing the second element of the test more rigorously . See, e.g. Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Systems, Inc., 135 F. 3d 445 (7th Cir. 1998); Fisher v. Wayne Dalton Corp., 139 F. 3d 1137 (7th Cir. 1998). It is the role of the judge, not the jury, to determine whether the plaintiff has stated a prima facie case . </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> (i) The plaintiff is a member of a protected class . </Dd> <Dd> (ii) The plaintiff applied and was qualified for the job . </Dd> <Dd> (iii) The application was rejected . </Dd>

Prima facie case of discrimination based on disparate treatment