0xbt

The district court docket did not access the difficulty of a remittitur, but might do so on remand pending its perseverance of Gap's movement for judgment as a matter of law on the harm awards. Id. at 225. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of judgment as a issue of legislation on the challenge of legal responsibility. See id. The district court docket under granted Gap's motion for a new trial and did not arrive at the concern of remittitur. 2108-09 Sandstad, 309 F.3d at 897. We consequently reverse the district court's grant of a new trial. 2002) (dicta) Rubinstein, 218 F.3d at 400. The first exception does not apply since the evidence does not conclusively expose some other reason for discharge. Instead, she brings evidence that Gap did not terminate her for that purpose. 2108-09. This is not a "scarce" exception to Reeves in which (1) the evidence conclusively reveals some other, nondiscriminatory rationale for the discharge or (2) the plaintiff's exhibiting as to pretext is weak and the employer provides "ample and uncontroverted" proof that its conclusion was not determined by discriminatory animus. Gap asserts that Laxton's situation will have to fall short mainly because she generated no evidence that discriminatory animus determined her termination.