Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): reasonable inference could be drawn that Thompson interfered with Lucas’s opportunity to get contract work with OADC based on evidence that Thompson and the OADC director were friends, communicated with each other on the day Lucas was terminated, and had a history of discussing whether Defender Office employees should receive OADC contracts. The undisputed evidence in the record, however, is that the OADC director never communicated with Thompson or Wilson about Lucas. Lucas’s argument requires a factfinder to speculate that perhaps the undisputed evidence is inaccurate, but such speculation and conjecture is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. See Pioneer Centres Holding Co. Emp. Stock Ownership Plan & Tr. v. Alerus Fin., N.A., 858 F.3d 1324, 1334 (10th Cir. 2017) (<HOLDING>). We affirm the magistrate judge’s grant of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict (B) holding that speculation and conjecture cannot support an adverse credibility finding (C) holding that burden of clear and convincing proof cannot be satisfied by mere conjecture or speculation (D) holding that an inference is unreasonable if it is a mere possibility or involves a degree of speculation and conjecture that requires the factfinder to make a guess (E) holding that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard
Output (English): holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict