[brief] First, the story is based on hearsay and innuendo and the story changes in material aspects between what [...] reported and what witnesses testified to under oath.  Linda Doughty reported in a memo that [...] told him “several people” had seen [...] “under her desk” with her “PC turned sideways” and that this was observed “on two different days” and that this was “odd” because “there would be no reason for [...] to be under her desk. ”  (Pa679).  At his deposition, however, [...] denied telling Linda Doughty there were several people who observed [...] under the desk and that there were allegedly only two.  (Pa679).  As far as [...] was concerned, even if true, the allegations made about [...] being under Linda Doughty’s desk was not a “rule violation” of any sort and he did not report it to his supervisor or anyone else.  (Pa680).  On March 3, 2016 [...] reported the story [...] told her to [...] by email and copied Linda Doughty, [...] and [...].  (Pa680).  [...], when confronted by [...] with this story stated firmly: “I wasn’t under your desk”, yet at deposition, Linda Doughty changed her position and her new version was [...] “didn’t say he wasn’t under my desk. ” (Pa680-Pa681).  An alleged eyewitness, [...], was reported to have stated that on February 18, 2016, Alan was “completely under” the desk “with my computer turned sideways” (Pa681) but at her deposition, [...] denied she ever told anybody that she saw [...] turn the computer monitor sideways and she never told anybody that [...] was under the desk attempting to do something to Linda Doughty’s desktop computer.  (Pa692).  Also, Linda Doughty reported that [...] claimed that co-worker [...] also saw [...] under the desk and, in fact, that [...] had a conversation with [...] when he was under the desk.  (PSMF 160, Pa681).  Not only did [...] deny this, but [...] also testified at deposition that she never told anybody that [...] saw [...] under Linda Doughty’s desk. (Pa692).  Further, the charges were based not on being under [...]’s desk but for denying he was under the desk.  (Pa683, Pa687).  [...] could not identify any other employee who was charged with major discipline for denying he or she engaged in wrongful conduct.  (Pa569).  On April 8, 2016, [...] reported to Patricia Gardener that Dillon “denied any recollection of being under Ms. Doughty’s desk or every having a conversation regarding such” and Strapp was “preparing a major disciplinary charges to be served to Mr. Dillon for conduct unbecoming and falsification of statements to our office. ”  (Pa683).  On April 11, 2016, Linda Doughty emailed co-worker [...] that she learned about the status of the disciplinary action taken against [...] that [...] “[d]enied it completely when questioned,” that the Director of Labor Relations, [...], “doesn’t believe him at all” and “wants to throw the book at him” for “lying,” and “the issue may cause problems [for [...]] with pensions. ” (Pa684-Pa685).  Thus, a jury could easily conclude that the story on which the disciplinary charges were based is full of holes and the real reason for the disciplinary action taken against Dillon seeking a 5 day penalty was to retaliate against him for opposing discrimination and retaliation.