th court told us it arises because of the different insight about employers that ter ovide reese's, so if this is the rare er who cannot come forwah nondiscriminatoryson r their action, the reason becomes more likely discriminatory. that is annsight that holds good regardless of the identity thelaintiff. th a plaintiff who makes out a prima facie case is necessarily going to trial. in virtually every case, an employercomeorward with some nondiscriminatory reason for theions, and then the question wcus whether that reason is tual or whether there is otherwise events to indicatehat an employer acted for a discriminatory reason. that itself is a difficult word and forlaintiffs to meet. we rejecthe sixth circuit's test because it is adding an adal a textual burden that risks screening out cases that might otherwise satisfy the statute standard for liability. >> can you givbaground about the eeoc's interpretation of the statute, because it has a different approach, right? >> it has a different approach -- >> i did not mean and you do, i'm at the sixth circuit. >> yes, it has rd the backgrou