Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R . 47 .5, th e court has determined thatt hi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20216

DARREL L B T AYL OR P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. PE ERL ES S I NDU S TR I ES I NC D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 4: 04- C V

- 2964

B e fo r e K IN G , B E N AV ID E S , a n d C L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * P la in tiff-A p p e lla n t D a r r e l l B . T a y lo r , a b la c k m a le , b r o u g h t t h is s u it agai nstD ef

endant

- A ppel l ee Peer l es s I ndu st r i es , I nc. , a m anufac t ure rof m et al
s u p p o r t b r a c k e ts fo ra u d io a n d v is u a l d e v ic e s , a lle g in gth a t P e e r le s s fir e d h im
as a di st r i c ts al es r epr es ent at i ve bec ause of hi s rac e i n vi ol at i on o f bo t h 42 U
. S

. C

. § 1981 an d T i t l e V II o f th e C i vi lR i gh t s A ctof 196 4. Th e di st ri ctcourt gr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm enti n favorof Peer l es s, bu t thi s c our tvac at ed t hat j udg m e ntan d r e m and e d t he s ui tt o t he di s t r i c tc o ur to n t he g r o unds t hatt he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkNo. 08-20216

2 d i stri ct cou rt erred by fa i l i n g to a p p l y th e “m od i fi ed ” McD on n el lD o ug la s t est
u sed i n t h i s c i rcui t
. O n rem a n d , th e d i st ri ctcourtagain gran t ed su m m ary j udg m e nti n fav o ro f Pe e rl ess, f

i ndi ng t hat , und e rt he m o di f i e d McD o n n ell D o uglas t es t , Tayl or had m ade o uta pr i m a fac i e c as e o f di sc r i m i nat i on buthad fai l ed to sho w t h at Peerl ess’ s s t ated reason f or f i ri n g T aylorw as pret extual or t hatr ac e w as a m o t i va t i ng fac t o r . The di s t r i c tc o ur ta l s o f o und t hatPe e rl ess w ou l d h ave m ad e t h e deci si on t o f i re Ta yl or r ega rd les s o f any di scr i m i n ator y a n im u s . T a ylor n ow ap p ea l s t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s se c on d gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t,
a s s e r t in gt h a tT a y lo r ’s s u p e r io rs a le s p e r fo r m a n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s th a tP e e r le s s ’s stated rea son f

or fi ri n g T a ylor— th a t he h a d n eg l ected to co m p ly w i th
m a n a g e m e n t’s d ir e c tiv e s co n c e r n in gh o w h e w a s to p e r fo r m h is jo b a n d th a t t h is
w as causi n g h i m t o be i n ef fect i ve i n t h e f

i el d— w as a p re te x t for race d is c r im in a t io n a n d , a lt e r n a t iv e ly , t h a te v e n if th e s t a t e d r e a s o n fo rT a y lo r ’s d i sm i ssa lw a s tru e, P ee rl ess ’ s u n fav ora b l e trea tm e n t of T a ylor w i th resp ect to p a y , e v a lu a tio n s , a n d jo b d e m a n d s re la tiv e t o w h ite e m p lo y e e s ; fa ilu r e to co m p ly
w i t h i t s progress i ve di sci pl i n ary pol i cy; an d fai l u re to h i re an d m ai n t ai n a m ore raci al ly d i verse w orkf orce, dem on st rat e t h at r ace w as al so a m ot i vati n g fact or i n hi s di sm i ss al
. Tayl oral so a sse r t s t hatt he di st r i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng t hat P e e r le s s w o u ld h a v e fir e d T a y lo r e v e n if r a c e h a d b e e n a m o tiv a tin gfa c t o r is spe c ul at i ve and i nhere nt l y a fac tques t i on f ora j ury. P e e rle ss re sp o n d s th a t sa les v o lu m e a lon e is n o t th e so le m e a su r e o f a sal esperson’ s ef

fect i ven ess, an d that Ta yl or’ s s al es volu m e in parti cul ar i s not
a r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t o ro f h i s e f fe c t i v e n e s s b e c a u s e h e me r e l ys e r v i c e d e x i s t i ng ac c ount s and di d nots ec ure addi t i onalcli en ts ors al es . Peer l es s as se r t s t hat T aylorw as a n i n ef

fect i ve sal esperson becau se he fai l ed to cal lon custom ers or ge ne r at e ne w b us i ne s s , he fai l e d t o u s e t he c us t o m e rm ana ge m e ntda t ab as e , a nd h i s c om m u n i cat i on w i t h m an agem en tw as al m ostn on exi st en t
. Peerl essNo. 08-20216

Peerless als o as s erts that Taylor h as faile d to make out a prima facieca se of 1 discriminationonth e groun ds that T aylor was not qualifie d for thepositionbecau se h e l acked the mini mum q ualific atio ns for his po sitio n, such as effective writing an d co mmunic atio n skills, and because he performe d poorly
. Peerless’s argument that Taylor lackedth e minimu m qualifications for the position is b eli ed b y the fact that P eerl ess hired Taylor in the first p lace , and performanc e c on c er nsar e m or e ap p rop riat ely ad dr es s edin a s s es s in g a p laintiff’s assertion th at ane mp loyer’sarticulate d re a so nf orits actio nwa s ap retext. See Berquis t v. Was h. M ut. Bank , 50 0 F .3d 3 44, 35 0– 51 (5 th Cir . 200 7) (“Altho ugh W as hi ngt onMu tual s ub m it t edevi d ence that Ber qui st’s supervisors were not plea sed with his performance, this evidence does not prove al ackof qu alification s at th e prim af aci e st a ge. ”) ; B ienkowski v. Am. Airlines, I nc. , 85 1 F.2 d 150 3, 150 6 (5th Cir. 198 8) (“[A] plaintiff challe nging his termin atio n or demoti oncan ordin arily estab lisha prima facieca se of age discrimination by showin g that he continu ed to possess th e necessary qualifications for his j ob at the time of th e a dverse action . The lines of battle mayth en be drawn over the em ployer’s articul ated reaso n for its actionan d whether th at re a so ni s ap retext for a ge di scri min ation .”). 3 c o n te n d s th a t T a y lo rw a s tr e a te d u n fa v o r a b ly r e la tiv e to w h ite e m p lo y e e s s o le ly b eca u se of T a ylor’ s u n i q u e per form a n ce pro b l em s an d tha t T a ylor h a s fa i l ed to i den t i f y an y w h i t e em pl oyees w h o ha d t h e sam e perf orm an ce probl em s as Ta yl or ye twe r e t r e a t e d d i f fe r e nt l y ; t ha tPe e r l e s s c o m p l i e d wi t h i t s p r o g r e s si ve di s c i pl i nar y po l i c y; a nd t hatTay l o r ’ s evi de nc e c o nc e r ni ng Pee r l e s s ’ s hi r i ng practi ces are inaccurate an d i n concl u sive. Peerl ess assert s t h at t h e qu est i on of
w h e t he rPe e r l e s s w o ul d ha ve f i r e d Ta yl o re ve n i f

r ac e ha d b e e n a m o t i va t i ng fac t ori s t he pr ope rs ubj ec tof a s um m ar y j udgm entr ul i ng. 1 Fo rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, we AF FI RM
. I . Bac kgr ound P r io rto w o r k in gfo rP e e r le s s , T a y lo rh a d s e v e n te e n y e a r s o f e x p e r ie n c e in
s al e s a tc o m pa ni e s s uc h a s Bos e Cor por at i o n, W e s t e r n U ni o n, a nd Phi l i ps C on sum er E l ect roni cs. Peerl ess h i red T aylori n O ct ober 200 1 as a di st ri ctsal es r e p r e s e n ta tiv e in th e p r o fe s s io n a l s a le s d e p a r tm e n t. T h e r e w e r e a p p r o x im a te ly t e n e m pl o ye e s i n t he s al e s f o r c e . Tay l o r w as t he o nl y s al e s pe r s o n w ho w as b l ac k; th e oth ers w ere w h i te. T a ylor w a s resp on sibl e for P ee rl ess ’ s S ou th D i stri ct,
w h i ch i n cl u ded T exas, O klahom a, A rkan sas, an d L ou i si an a. Ta yl or’ s di rect sup ervi sor at Peerl ess w as K evi n M cD on al d, t h e souther n r e g i on alsal esNo. 08-20216

4 m an ager. B egi n n i n g i n A u gu st200 2, M cD on a ld bega n report i n g t o T om C on n ol l y , th e new di rect or of professi on alsal es. C on n ol l y report ed to K en Johnso n, t he vi c e pr es i dentof s al es and m ar ket i ng. I n 2002, Tayl orh ad the hi ghes tsal es vol um e atP ee r l es s and r ec eived an awar d f o rb e i ng t he “ num be ro ne ” s al e s pe r s o n a tt he s al e s a w ar d d i nne ra tt he
e nd o f t he y e ar . I n t haty e ar , he e xc e e de d hi s s al es qu ot a by 29
. 2% a nd i nc r e as e d s al e s i n hi s di s t r i c t by5 8. 1%
. Ta yl o r ’ s b i gg e s tc us t o m e rw as U l t r ak , a c om p a n y th a t had be en a Pee r l es s c ust om erpr i ort o Tayl or ’ s ar r i valat Pee r l e s s . Exc l udi ng s al e s t o U l t r ak , T ay l o r ’ s s al e s i nc r e as e d 2 8. 5% i n 2 00 2 and
w e r e s till a b o v e h i s s a l e s q u o ta
. M c D o n a ld g a v e T a y lo ra “1 ” o n e a c h o f h is qu art erl y p e rfo rm an ce r evi ew s i n 200 2, w h i ch w ere graded on a 0–2 sc al e. P e e r le s s u s e d th e fo llo w in gh a lf-p o in t in c r e m e n ta l ra tin gs c a le : a “2 ” is consi dered excep t i on al ; a “ 1. 5” i s c on si dered ou tstan di n g; a “ 1” i s c on si dered good ; an d a “. 5” i s c on si dered b el ow st an da rd. M cD on al d’ s c om m en t s i n t h ese r e v ie w s w e r e g e n e r a lly p o s itiv e , p r a is in g T a y lo r fo r h is w illin g n e s s to h e lp
c ust om er s, l ea rn i n g q u i ck l y a b ou t P ee rl ess ’ s bu sine ss, com i ng up w i t h goo d i deas at sal es m eet i n gs, m ak i n g bu si n ess contact s and bu i l di n g dea l er r el ati on shi ps, accepti n g feedb ack, hi s energy an d en t h u si asm f or hi s j ob, an d h i s sal es per f o r m a nc e . I n hi s t hi r d a ndf o ur t h q ua r t e rr e v i e ws , M c Don a l d s t a t e d t hat T a y lo rn e e d e d to im p r o v e o n co m m u n ic a tin gw ith h is cu s to m e r s a n d M c D o n a ld
o n a t i m e l y andc o ns i s t e ntb as i s , s c he dul i ng hi s t i m e , a nd pl anni ng hi s w o r k, b ut M c D o nal d s t at e d t hat , o n t he w ho l e , Tay l o rha d “ do ne a g o od j ob i n 2 00 2” a nd
w a s o p e n to fe e d b a ck forw a y s to im p ro v e h is w o rk
. In h is th ird -q u a rte r s e lfeval uat i on, Tayl or st at ed t hat hi s gener al per f or m ance had bee n goo d and t hat
on e of h i s cu rren t goa l s w a s to “i m p rov e alll ev els of com m u n i ca ti on , bo th in te r n a l a n d e x te r n a l.” C onnol l y o r der ed al ls al es r epr es ent at i ves t o subm i t a det ai l ed sa l es pl an f o r2 0 0 3 b yJ a n u a r y6 , 2 0 0 3
. Ta y l o rt u r n e d i n h i s s a l e s p l a n o n J a n u a r y8 , t woNo. 08-20216

5 d a y s la te
. C o n n o llyw a s d is s a tis fie d w ith T a y lo r ’ s s a le s p la n a n d o r d e r e d h im t o subm i ta revi sed versi on becau se t h e f i rst plan T aylorsubm i t t ed w as based
on i n accu ra t e sal es f i gu res f rom t h e pri or year, di d n otf ol l ow t h e speci f

i ed form at , a nd d i d no ts pe c i f i c al l y di s c us s ho w Tay l o ri nt e nde d t o i nc r e as e s al e s. C on n oll y testif

i ed tha t he be l i ev ed T a y lor d i d n ot p u t m u ch ti m e or e ff ort i n to prepa ri n g t h e pl an an d that t h e i n accurate f i gu res dem on st rat ed that he did not unde r s t andhi s ter ri t o r y ande xi s t i ng ac c o unt s v e r y w e l l
. Ta yl o rs ubm i t t e d a
r e vi s e d p l an w i t h ac c ur at e sa l e s f i gur e s , butConno l l y w as di s s at i s f i e d wi t h t he
rev i sed rep ort b e ca u se itdid n ot sp ecif i ca l l y d i scu ss h ow T a ylor i n ten d ed to in c r e a s e s a le s . H o w e v e r , C o n n o llya c c e p te d T a y lo r ’ s r e v is e d s a le s p la n a n d d id
no tr e que s tt hatTay l o ra ga i n r e vi s e hi s s al e s pl an. Tayl orr ec eived a t hre e- per c entm er i ti ncr eas e i n pay o n Februar y 3, 2003 b a s e d o n h is p e r fo r m a n c e in 2 0 0 2 . T h e a v e r a g e m e r it p a y in c r e a s e fo rP e e r le s s ’s
s a le s fo r c e th a t y e a rw a s fo u rp e r c e n t, a n d ra n g e d b e tw e e n tw o a n d fiv e o rs ix percent. C on n ol l y t est i f i ed that t h e am ou n t of t h e i n crease w as based on sal es perf orm an ce and professi on alcom portm en t , i. e. , how w el lt h e sal esperson w orked w i t h assoc i ates an d custom ers, f ol l ow - u p skil l s, kn ow l edg e of produ ct s, a n d a c tiv ity le v e ls
. H e s ta te d th a t h e d id n o t r e lys tr o n g lyo n s a l e s fig u r e s in
a ss e ss ing s al es perf orm an ce becau se t h ey w ere n ot a rel i able i n di cat or of a
s a le s p e r s o n ’ s e ffe c tiv e n e s s d u e to th e fa c t t h a t a n i n d iv id u a l’ s s a le s co u ld in c r e a s e o rd e c r e a s e a s a re s u lt o f e v e n ts o v e rw h ic h h e h a d n o co n tr o l. C o n n o lly st ated t h at h e t ri ed “ t o fai rl y even l y di vi de t h e balance of t h e m on i es because I d i d n ’ t ha ve a g oo d w a y o f m a k i n g a seriou s j u d gm en t t h ere . ” S o m e ti m e in F e b r u a r y2 0 0 3 , o n e o f t h e la r g e s tc u s t o m e r s in T a y lo r ’s t e r r i t o r y t o l d M c D o nal d t hatTay l o rha d ne ve rm e tw i t h t hatc us t o m e ri n pe r s o n, and anot herc ust om ert ol d M c D onald th a t T ayl orhad notm etw i t h t hat
c u s t o m e rs in c e F e b r u a r y2 0 0 2 . M c D o n a ld a n d C o n n o l l y r e v ie w e d T a y lo r ’s
e x p e n s e a n d a c tiv ity re p o r ts to tr a c k T a y lo r ’ s c o n ta c ts w ith cu s to m e r s . C o n n o llyNo. 08-20216

6 assert ed t h at they f

ou n d t h at T aylorw as not t i m el y i n subm i t t i n g i t i n erari es or act i vi t y report s t o j u st i f y h i s t i m e i n t h e fi el d; h e w as not m ak i n g suff i ci en tsal es c a ll s o rg e n e r a t in gs u ff ic ie n tn e w b u s in e s s ; h e w a s n o tp r o p e r ly u s in gP e e r le s s ’s custom er m an agem en t da t aba se syst em t o t rack h i s contact s; h is sa l es presentati on s w ere di sorgan i zed and u n schedu l ed; an d hi s exp en se r eports w ere nott i m el y. O n M a rch 2 0 , 2 0 0 3 , C on n oll y in stru cted M cD on a l d to h a ve a m ee ti n g w i th Tay l o ra bo utTay l or’ s pe r f o r m anc e . Conno l l y t e s t i f i e d t hatTay l o rha d s t r o ng sal es nu m bers att h e t i m e, bu tt h at C on n ol l y w as concern e d a b ou tw h et h er T a ylor w a s d oin g t h e n e c ess a ryw ork to secu re fu tu re sa l es a n d w a s u n a b l e to
assess t h i s base d o n th e l i m i t ed feedb ack C on n ol l y w as rec ei vi n g f rom T aylor
. In th e m e e tin g , M c D o n a ld a n d T a y lo rd is c u s s e d th e n e e d fo rs c h e d u lin gin
a d v a n c e tw e lv e fa c e -to -fa c e ca lls e a c h w e e k , re tu r n in ge -m a ils a n d p h o n e ca lls i n a t i m e l y fas hi o n, de ve l o pi n g bett ert i m e m ana ge m e nts ki l l s , a nd i m pr o vi ng org a n i za ti on an d efficie n t us e of w ork e-m a i l
. W h en ask ed ab ou t his con tacts
w i t h t h e cust om ers w h o i n f orm ed M cD on al d ab ou tt h ei r l ac k o f face- t o- face co n ta ct w i t h T aylor , T aylort ol d M cD on al d that he h ad spoken w i t h t h em num er ous t i m es by t el ephone. M c D onal d s entC onnol l y a m em o on M ar c h 24
r epo r t i ng on t he c ont ent s of t he m ee t i ng. M c D onal d not ed i n th e m em o t hat Peer l es s c ust om ers er vi c e r epr es ent at i ves h a d r epe at edl y t ol d M c D onal d t hat th e yh a d d iffic u lty g e tt in gin co n ta c t w ith T a y lo r . O n M a r c h 2 7 , 2 0 0 3 , C o n n o ll yc a ll e d T a y lo rto d is c u s s T a y lo r ’s pe r f o r m anc e . Conno l l y i nf o r m e d Tay l o r t hathi s pe r f o r m anc e ha d b e e n de f i c i e nt f ort he f ol l ow i ng r eas ons : h i s 2003 s al es pl an w as l at e, i ncl uded i nco r r ec tdat a, and show ed l i t t l e i nsi ghti nt o hi s s al es obj ec t i ves ; fort he f i r stquar t erof

2003, h e m ad e onl y tw o cal l s on prospective custom ers, w h i l e ot h er s al es r e pr e s e nt at i ve s m ad e a tl e as to ne pe rw e e k; he h ad ne ve rv i s i t e d o ne o f t he l a r g e s tc u s t o m e r s i n h i s t e r r i t o r ya n d h a d n o tv i s i t e d a n o t h e ri n mo r e t han aNo. 08-20216

7 year ; f ort he f i r stqu ar t erof

2003, h e m ade onl y 29 c al l s on c ust om er s, and w as e xp e c t e d t o m ak e atl e as t12 pe rw e e k; he di d no tus e t he c us t o m e rm ana ge m e nt da t aba se— h e ha d en t ered only 67 con t actn am es i n t o the syst em , som e of w h i ch
w e r e dup l i c at e s , w he n he w as ex pe c t e d t o ent e ratl e as t2 00 c o nt ac tna m e s ; he
m a d e “dro p -by s” ra th er th a n s ch ed u l ed cu stom er m ee ti n gs ; h e fai l ed to con tact, pe r C o n n ol l y’ s di rect i on , a parti cul ar cust om er; he w as un organ i zed on sal es ca l l s; an d h e d i d n ot ad eq u a tel y co m m u n i ca te w i th m a n a ge m en t. C on n ol l y, rat h er t h an M cD on al d, com pl et ed T aylor ’ s perf orm an ce r evi ew fo rth e fir s t q u a r te ro f 2 0 0 3
. T h e re v ie w , iss u e d o n M a r c h 2 8 , w a s s h a r p ly cri t i calan d ga ve T aylo r a “. 5” r ati n g, i n di cat i n g t h at hi s w ork w as bel ow s t and ar d. The r e vi e w st at e d t hatT ay l o rhad be e n sl o w t o a da ptt o t he ne w f o c us an d respon sib il it i es of hi s posi t i on an d that hi s s al es act i vi t i es had not m et C onno l l y’ s expectat i on s. Th e revi ew em ph asi zed T aylor ’ s fai l u re t o becom e m ore org a n i ze d i n h i s w ork , com m u n i ca te eff ectively, plan ah ea d , t im ely resp on d to t el eph on e cal l s and e- m ai l s, an d m a k e fac e -to-fa ce a p p o in tm e n ts w ith cu stom ers, a n d r e p e a te d t h e s a m e s p e c ific c r itic is m s o f T a y lo r ’ s p e r fo r m a n c e th a t C o n n o lly had m ade i n t hei r t el ephone c onver sa t i on t he day bef or e. Th e r evi ew s t at ed t hat T aylorw as not un coveri n g m an y m ean i n gf u lnew bu si n ess opp ortu n iti es or deve l opi ng s t r o ng e rr e l a t i o ns hi ps w i t h t he s i gni f i c antdeal er s i n hi s di st r i c t , t hat h e w as m ore com f

ort able goi n g back to the sam e con t act s w i t h the sam e dealer s rat h er t h an f

i n di n g n ew contact s, t h at h i s s al es nu m ber w ere deceivi n g becau se th e U ltr a k a c c o u n t w a s d r iv in gv ir tu a llya ll o f h i s g r o w t h a n d m u c h o f h is vol um e, and t hathi s sa l es vo l um e w i t h ot herac c ount s w as m uch l es s i m pre ss i ve an d i n di cat i ve of

a sal es patt ern that w as not ef fect i ve. Th e perf

orm an ce r evi ew s t at e d t hatTay l o rw as r e qui r e d t o i m m e d i a t e l y ad dr e s s t he s pe c i f i c e xp e c t at i o ns l ai d ou ti n t h e revi ew , i n cl u di n g pl an n i n g sal es cal l s i n ad van ce; m ak i n g at l east 12 face- t o- face sales call s each w eek; p l an n i n g speci f i c sal es objec t i ves f

or each
c al l ; r e c o r di ng s al e s - c al l r e s ul t s i n t he c us t o m e r da t ab as e s ys t em ; subm i t t i ngNo. 08-20216

8 w e e k lye x p e n s e re p o r ts ; m e e tin gfa c e -to -fa c e w ith a ll s ig n ific a n t d e a le r s in h is di st ri ctw i t h i n t h e m on t h ; s e c ur i n g t h ree app oi n t m en t s w i t h com pu t er acc essor y d e a le r s o rr e s e lle r s w ith in t h e n e x t m o n th ; o p e n in gth r e e n e w a c c o u n ts w ith in t he ne xtm o nt h; pr o vi di ng r e s po ns i ve a nd a c c ur at e c o m m uni c at i o n; a nd g r o w i ng h i s book of

bu si n ess. Co n n o l l ya s s e r t e d t h a ti n A p r i l 2 0 0 3 , h e o r a l l y i n s t r u c t e d T a y l o r , o n t wo separate oc casi on s, t o cal lh i m tw i ce each w eek t o ch eck i n . C on n ol l y sent Ta yl or a n e -m a ilo n A p r il1 7 s t a t in gth a tT a y lo rh a d n o tc o m p li e d w it h C o n n o ll y ’s di rect i ve t o callh im t w i ce each w eek an d rem i n di n g h i m t o do so. Ta yl or d is p u te d th is a c c o u n t, s ta tin g th a t C o n n o lly to ld h im to ca ll ei t h er C on n ol l y or M c D onal d t w i c e eac h w ee k, but he c onc ede d t hat he di d not c al l C onnol l y as d i rected a ft er receivingthe e-m a i l
. C on n oll y a l so a sse rted tha t T a ylor fail ed to
s a t i s f yt h e p e r f

o r ma n c e e x p e c t a t i o n s o u t l i n e d i n h i s p e r f o r ma n c e r e v i e w. O n M ay2 , 2 00 3, Tay l o rw as f i r e d a nd r e pl ac e d b y a w h i t e m al e. A tt he t i m e he w as f

i red, T aylorw as ah ead of hi s s al es quota an d h ad rank ed ei t h er f i rstor second i n sal es i n t h e precedi n g f ou r m on t h s. I n T a y lor ’ s l et t er of t erm i n ati on , P eerl ess st ated t h at “ as w as no t e d e xt e ns ive l y i n you r Fi rstQ u art er P erf orm an ce R evi ew , t h ere hav e b een a g row i n g l i stof thi n gs you ha ve chosen nott o a c tupon i n a tim ely fas hi on t hati s c ausi ng you t o b e l ar gel y i nef fec t i ve i n t h e f i el d, ” an d “[t ] h ere has been l i t t l e act i vi t y i n the pa stfew w eeks to sup port
a n ych a n g e in th e e ffe c tiv e u s e o f y o u rs a le s tim e .” I I . The Appl i c ab l e Leg alSt anda r ds A . Th e St andard of R evi ew T h i s c ou rtrevi ew s a dis t ri ctcourt ’ s grant of sum m ary j u dg m en tde n ovo, a p p ly in gth e s a m e s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. SeeX L S pec i al ty I

ns. Co. v. Ki e w i tOf

f s ho r eSe r v s . , Lt d. , 5 1 3 F .3 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); H ir r a s v . Na t ’l R
. R
. Pas s e nge rCor

p. , 9 5 F .3 d 3 9 6 , 3 9 9 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). S u m m a r yju d g m e n t is pro per i f t he r ec or d r ef l ec t s “ t hat t her e i s no genui ne i ss ue as to an y m at er i alNo. 08-20216

9 fa c t a n d t h a t t h e mo v a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n t a s a ma t t e r o f l a w. ” F e d
. R. C iv. P
. 5 6 (c). B . T h e M o d i f

i ed M cD o n n ellD o u g l a s T est U n der T i t l e V II , i ti s an “un l aw f u lem pl oym en tpract i ce f or an em pl oyer

. . . to d is c r im in a te a g a in s t a n y in d iv id u a l .
. . b e c a u s e o f s u c h in d iv id u a l’ s ra c e .” 42 U
. S

. C

. § 2000 e- 2( a) ( 1)

. Sect i on 198 1 gran t s equ al ri gh t s t o “ m ak e an d en f orce contract s, ” incl u di n g “ t h e m ak i n g, p erf orm an ce, m odi f

i cat i on , an d ter m i n ati on o f c o nt r ac t s , a nd t he e nj o ym e nto f a l l be ne f

i t s , pr i vi l e ge s , t e r m s , a nd c o ndi t i o ns of t h e contr act u al rel ati on shi p. ” 42 U
. S

. C

. § 1981 ( a) –(b)

. Tit l e V II an d sect i on 198 1 cl ai m s r equ i re t h e sam e proof t o est abli sh l i abil i t y w h en u sed as parall el
c a u s e s o f a c tio n . B u n ch v. B u l lard , 7 9 5 F .2 d 3 8 4 , 3 8 7 n .1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). Thi s c o ur tr e cognize s a m o di f i e d McD on n el lD ougl as bur de n- s hi f t i ng f ram ew ork t o an al yze cl ai m s of di scr i m i n ati on w h ere, as here, t h e pl ai n t i f f rel i es o n cir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . S ee R ach i dv. Ja ck I n T h e B ox, I

n c. , 376 F. 3d 305, 3 1 1 n .8 & 3 1 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (fo llo w in gth e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e c is io n , a fte rT itle VI I ’ s a m e ndm e nt , i n D es er t Pa la ce , In c . v . Co sta , 5 3 9 U .S

. 9 0 , 1 0 1 (20 0 3 )); se e als o B u rre l lv. D r. Pepper/S even U p B ot t l i ng G roup , I

n c. , 4 8 2 F
. 3 d 40 8 , 41 1 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). U n d e rt h is a p p r o a c h , t h e p la in tiff m u s t fir s t e s ta b lis h a p r im a fa c ie case of di scr i m i n ati on by show i n g t h at ( 1) he i s a m em ber of a pr o te ct ed cl ass; ( 2) he i s qua l i f

i ed f or t h e posi t i o n at i ssue; ( 3) he su f fered an adv erse em pl oym en tact i on ; a n d ( 4) he w as repl aced by som eon e outsi de the protec t ed
c l as s o rw as t r e at e d l e s s fav o r ab l y t hans i m i l ar l y- s i t uat e d e m pl o ye e s o ut s i de t he protec t ed cl ass. R a ch id , 3 7 6 F .3 d a t 3 1 2 ; O k oy e v. Un iv. of T ex . Ho u sto n Hea lth Sc i
. Ct r. , 2 4 5 F .3d 507 , 512 –13 ( 5th C i r. 200 1)

. I f t h e pl ai n t i f

f est abli shes a pri m a faci e case, t h e bu rden shi f t s t o th e d e fen d an tt o prof fer a l egi t i m ate,
n o n d is c r im in a to r yre a s o n fo rits a c tio n . R a ch id , 3 76 F. 3da t3 12
. I f t he de fe nda nts at i s f

i e s i t s b ur de n o f

pr o duc t i o n, t he b ur de n t he n s hi f t s b ac k t o t he pl ai nt i f f t o o f fers uf f i c i entev i denc e t o c r eat e age nui ne i ss ue o f m at er i alfac tt hatNo. 08-20216

10 ei t h er ( 1) the defenda n t ’ s reason is fal se and i s a pret ext f or di scr i m i n ati on , or (2) th a t t h e em p l oy er’ s re a s o n , w h i l e tru e, i s on l y o n e of the rea son s f or it s c o n d u c t, a n d th e p la in tiff ’ s p r o te c te d ch a r a c te r is tic w a s a “m o tiv a tin gfa c to r ” in its d e c is io n . Id
. I f th e p la in tiff d e m o n s tr a te s t h a t th e p r o te c te d ch a r a c te r is tic
w as a m ot i va t i ng fac t o ri n t he e m pl o ym e ntde c i s i o n, i tt he n fal l s t o t he defenda n tt o prove t h at t h e sam e adv erse em pl oym en t deci si on w ou l d h ave been
m a d e re g a r d le s s o f d is c r im in a to r ya n im u s . If th e e m p lo y e rfa i l s t o c a r r yth is b u r d e n , th e p la in tiff p r e v a ils
. I

d. II I. A n a ly s is A . P r et ext P ee rl ess in fo r m e d T a ylor th a t he w a s f i red f or fail i n g to co m p l y w i th
m anagem ent ’ s di r ec t i ves c onc er ni ng how he w as t o pe r f or m hi s j ob, w hi c h had resul t ed i n hi m bei n g i n ef fe ctive i n t h e f

i el d. Sp eci f

i cal l y, i n T aylor ’ s l et t er of t erm i n ati on , P eerl ess st at e d that“ as w as no t e d e xt en sivel y i n you r Fi rstQ u art er P erf orm an ce R evi ew , there h ave been a g row i n g l i stof t h i n gs you ha ve chosen nott o act u p on i n a t i m el y fas hi on t hati s c ausi ng you t o b e l ar gel y i nef fec t i ve i n the f i el d, ” a n d “[t ] h ere has been l i t t l e act i vi t y i n t h e past f ew w eeks to sup port
an y cha n ge i n t h e ef

fect ive u se of you r sal es t i m e. ” T aylorasser t s t h at hi s s al es num be r s de m o ns t rat e t h at t h i s l egi t i m ate, non di scr i m i n ator y r e as o n i s f al s e a nd i s a pretext f

or di scr i m i n ati on . P eerl ess does n ot di spu t e t h at T aylorha d good
sa les n u m b e rs , b u t a ss e rts th a t sa les v o lu m e a lon e is n o t th e so le m e a su re of a sal esperson’ s ef

fect ive n e ss, an d that Ta yl or’ s s al es vol u m e i n parti cul ar i s not
a r e l i ab l e i ndi c at o ro f hi s ef fe c t i ve ne s s be c aus e he m e r e l y s e r vi c e d l ar ge e xi s t i ng c l i en t s a nd d i d no t s e c ur e a d d i t i o na l c l i e nt s o r s a l e s . Pe e r l e s s a s s e r t s t hat T aylorw as an i n ef

fect i ve sal esperson becau se he fai l ed to cal lon cu st om ers or ge ne r at e ne w b us i ne s s , he fai l e d t o us e t he c us t o m e rm ana ge m e ntda t ab as e , a nd h i s com m u n i ca ti on m a n a ge m en t w a s alm ost n on ex i sten t. W e bel i eve t h at t h i s case i s s i m i l ar t o Bake rv . Rands t ad Nor t h Am e r i c a,No. 08-20216

2 Taylor submitte d evidence not o nlyth at he had a high sales volume, butth at he consi stently exceede d his sales quota in 200 2 and 200 3, whichP eerl ess could h ave a dju sted toaccount for his inh eritance of l arge sales account s, changing market con ditio ns, or simply a b eli ef th at Taylor c oul d an d should be abl e to make more sales. Connolly testifi ed that h e revi ewed e ach salesperson’s sales figures and that someti mes it was unclear whetherth e salesper son was actu ally respon sibl e for th eir sales, and that h e di d not b eli eve th at sales figures w ere a reli abl e indic atorof a salesperson’s effective ness due to the fact that an indivi dual’s sal es could increaseor decrea se as a result of events over whichh e h ad no co ntrol. However , C onnolly’s assertedbelief in the unreli ability of these figures is belied byth e fact th at Peerless stillset sale s qu ot a s f

oritssale sp eo pl e an d gave award s f orhighsale s volu me . M ore over, a 11 L. P. , 151 F. A pp’ x 314 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) , i n w hi c h t hi s c our thel d t hatev i denc e t hat a sal esperson w as t h e hi gh estrevenu e gen erat or in h i s m arket di d n otrai se a ge nui ne i ssue o f

m at e r i alfac ta s t o w he t he rhi s e m pl o ye r ’ s r e as o n f o rf i r i ng hi m — hi s p oo rs al e s pe r f o r m anc e — w as pr e t e xt ual
. I n B ak er , t h e em pl oyer c o ns i de r e d a n u m bero f fac t o r s i n a ddi t i o n t o r e ve nue - ge ne r at i o n i n a s s e s s i ng sal es perf

orm an ce, i n cl u di n g produ ct i vi t y, t h e a bi l i t y t o g en erat e new bu si n ess, andcon t act i n g andha vi ng m e e t i ngs w i t h c l i e nt s . Thi s c o ur tf o und t hatt he evi den ce concern i n g t h e p l ai n t i f f ’ s h i gh reven u e g en erat i on fai l ed t o rais e a fact i s s ue a s t o pr e t e xtb ecau se the e m pl o ye r ’ s a s s e r t i o n t hatt he pl ai nt i f f w as t he p o o r e s t-p e r fo r m in g s a le s p e r s o n w a s b a s e d o n th e fa c t t h a t h e w a s ra n k e d p o o r ly und er al l of

t he o t herper f

or m ance i ndi c es c ons i der ed byt he e m pl oye r , and t hat hi s hi gh r eve nue w as nota r ef l ec t i on o f

go od s al es per f

or m ance be c ause i tw as d u e s o le lyto a s in g le la r g e a c c o u n t t h a t t h e p la in tiff h a d s e c u r e d e a r lyin h is
e m pl o ym e ntand w as “ l i vi ng o f f ” t hate nde d up ha vi ng ne ga t i ve pr o f i t ab i l i t y due to h ig h co s ts a n d w a s e v e n tu a llyd r o p p e d
. I d. a t 3 1 9
. Si m i l ar t o t he e m pl o ye ri n B ak er , P e e r le s s c o n s id e r e d a n u m b e ro f c r ite r ia i n ad di t i o n t o r e c o r de d s al e s i n as s e s s i ng s al e s pe r f o r m anc e , i nc l u di n g t he frequ en cy w i th w h i ch a sa l esp erso n ca l l ed on cu stom ers, th e a b i l i ty to ge n era te
n ew bu si n ess, u se of t h e custom er m an agem en tdataba se, an d com m u n i cat i on w i t h m an agem en t
. W h i l e T aylor ’ s sal es n u m bers can n ot be as easi l y di scoun t ed
as t ho s e i n B ak er , w e hol d that T a y lor ’ s sal es nu m bers by t h em selves are not 2No. 08-20216

sal e s p e r s o n’ ss al e svo lu m ei salway ss ubj e cttounc o ntro ll ab l evari ab l e ss ucha smarket condition s. Eve n exclu ding sal es toUltrak, Taylor’ s sales increa sed 2 8.5% in 200 2 and were stillab ove his sales quota. I n his deposition, Connollytestified that h e b eli eved th at the 28.5 % increasewas du e toa go od e cono mic climate, changes in state spending , an d oth er c ontr acts that were alrea dy in plac e whe n Taylor started working for Ultrak, but h e co ncede d th at this was simplyhis gen eralimpression an d th at he was unabl e toaccuratelyassess what portio n of th e 2 8.5% increasewas du e tot he s e va rio us factors. Connollystat ed th at “Idetermine d that Icouldn’t det ermin e” how muchcre dit Taylor shoul d h ave b ee n give n for the 28.5 % increase . 12 s uf f i c i e ntt o r ai s e a factis s ue a s t o pr e t e xtb e c aus e o f t he s i gni f

i c anc e o f

t he speci f i c al l eged perf

orm an ce def

i ci en ci es i n T aylor ’ s ef fect i ven ess a s a s al e s pe r s o n and t he fac tt hatT ay l o rhas fai l e d t o sub m i tev i de nc e t o r e butt he bul k of t hos e a l l egat i on s. T h e m er e fac tt hata s al es per so n has ac hi eve d hi gh
s a l e s n u mb e r s o v e ra r e l a t i v e l ys h o r tp e r i o d o f t i me — h e r e , l e s s t h a n t wo ye ar s — do e s n ot m e an t hata s al e s pe r s o n i s e f fe c t i ve i n t he f

i e l d i f t he undi s put e d e vi de nc e s ho w s tha t t he s al e s pe r s o n ha s ne gl e c t e d t o do t he
reasona bl e t asks requ est ed by hi s em pl oyer i n order t o m ai n t ai n or i n crease sal es i n t h e f

u t u re and t o al l ow t h e em pl oyer t o de v e lop a n d execu t e sal es st rat egi es and ensu re c om pl i an ce w i t h t h ose s t rat egi es. T aylorci t es s everalcases f rom our si ster ci rcui t s hol di n g t h at evi den ce t hata s al e s pe r s o n a c hi e ve d a s i gni f i c ants al e s v o l um e m ayshow t hatt he sal esperson perf

orm e d thei r j ob ef

fect i vel y an d that an a sser t ed p erf orm an ceba s e d r e as o n f

o rt he i rf

i r i ng w as pr e t e xt ual
. I n Fi s he r v . Phar m ac i a & U pj o hn , 225 F
. 3d 915 ( 8th C i r. 200 0) , t h e courtf ou n d that a sal esperson w h o ha d been dem ot ed by hi s em pl oyer, ost en sibl y becau se h e l acked suf f i ci en tprodu ct kn o w ledge, coul d n otef fect i vel y com m u n i cat e w i t h cust om ers, an d acted unpr o fe s s i o nal l y dur i ng s al e s c al l s , ha d r ai s e d a fac ti s s ue a s to w h et he rhe pe r f o r m e d hi s j o b ata l e ve lt hatm e thi s em pl o ye r ’ s l e gi t i m at e e xp e c t at i o ns a nd
w he t he rt he a s s e r t e d r e as o ns f o rhi s de m o t i o n wer e pr e t e xt ualb y pr e s e nt i ng te s t im o n yb ya cu s to m e ra n d m a n a g e rth a t h e w a s p r o fic ie n t a t s e llin gh is
c o m p a n y ’ s p r o d u c t s , s u p p l e m e n t e d b yp a s tp e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n s p r a is in gh isNo. 08-20216

Th e E ighthC ircuit consi ders whethera plaintiff “was performinghis j ob at a l evel that 3 met his e mployer’s legitimate expe ctati on s” as a question properly consi dered in assessing wh et he rap laintiff has satisfie d th e “qualifie d” pro ngof the prima facieshowingina termin atio n ord em ot io n case, in contrast to the rul e in this circuit that such performance conc erns are more appropriatelyaddres s edi n assessing a plaintiff’ s assertionth at an em ployer’sarticulate d re a so nf oritsactio nwa s ap retext. See Berq uist , 50 0 F .3d at 3 50–51; Bienkowski , 85 1 F .2d at 1 506
. 13 p e r fo r m a n c e th a t c o r r o b o r a te d th is te s tim o n y . I d. a t920 –21
. Th e Fi shercourt st ated t h at “ t h e sel l i n g of produ cti s t h e pri m ary responsi bi l i t y of a sal esperson a n d th u s th a ts a le s v o lu m e is g e n e r a ll yt h e p r in c ip a l in d ic a t o ro f a s a le s p e r s o n ’s p e r fo r m a n c e .” I

d. at920 ( c i t i ng K

e at hley v . Am e r i t e c h Cor p. , 187 F. 3d 915, 919 3 ( 8th C i r. 199 9) )

. T h e court contrast ed s al es posi t i on s w i t h m ore m u l t i facet ed j obs i n w h i ch j ob perf orm an ce coul d not as easi l y be redu ced t o a si n gl e m et ri c. I d. at920. T aylor al so ci t es Bre w e rv . Q uak e rSt at eO i lRef i ni ng Cor

p. , 72 F. 3d 326 ( 3dCi r . 1 99 5) , i n whi c h t he c o ur ts i m i l ar l y he l d t hata s al e s pe r s o n’ s e xc e l l e nt
s a le s fig u r e s co u ld s h o w th a t fir in gth a t s a le s p e r s o n fo r“p e r fo rm a n ce p r o b le m s ,”
w h en t h ose probl em s r el ated t o organ i zati on alski l l s r athe r th a n a ct u alsal es, w as a pr e t e xtf

o rdi s c r i m i nat i o n. I n B rew er , t h e cou rt h el d that a sal esperson hadr ai s e d a fac t i s s ue as t o w he t he r t he l e gi t i m at e , no n- di s c r i m i nat o r y r e as o ns f or t erm i n ati n g h i s em pl oym en t

— poor f ol l ow - u p on cust om er r equ est s, poor c o m m u n i c a tio n w ith clie n ts a n d w ith m a n a g e m e n t, to o litt le tim e s p e n t in h is t erri t ory, an d l ate and am bi gu ou s s a les r e p ort s— w ere onl y a pretextf or di s c r i m i nat i o n b y ( 1 ) t e s t i f yi ng ab o uts pe c i f

i c e xa m pl e s o f

hi s s upe r vi s o r ’ s e r r ant
or m i spl aced cri t i ci sm s i n order t o di spu t e t h e s i gn i f i can ce of

t h e probl em s r ai sed by h i s s u pervi sor an d ( 2) subm ittin g e v iden ce t h at he ha d p revi ou sl y received posi t i ve evaluati on s and bon u ses f or s u rpassi n g h i s sal es qu ot a i n t h e t w o years be f o r e he w as f

i r e d (t he m o s tr e c e ntg i ve n t hr e e m o nt hs b e f o r e he w as f

i r e d) , a nd h ad been t h e on l y sal esperson i n h i s r egi on t o exceed his or h er s al es quota f or th o s e tw o y e a r s . I

d. at 331 –32
. Th e courtbased its rul i n g on i t s obser vati onNo. 08-20216

14 t h a t“t h e v o lu m e o f s a le s m a ya lw a y s b e th e p r im a r ym e a s u r e o f a s a le s p e r s o n ’s perf orm an ce, ” an d that “segregat [ i n g] j ob perf orm an ce i n t o t h e nea tcat egori es o f s a le s a n d o r g a n iz a tio n a l s k ills d e fie s th e re a lity o f th e r o le o f a s a le s p e r s o n in
a com p a n y.” I

d. at331–32 (c i t i ng Ki l i sze w skiv. O verni t e Tra n sp. Co. , 8 1 8 F. Su pp. 128, 132 (W
. D
. Pa. 1993) )

. The c ou rt co nce ded t hat“ [ a] n em pl oye rm ay have a l egi t i m at e r eas on f orf i r i ng an em pl oye e t hathas not hi ng t o do w i t h t hat
e m pl o ye e ’ s per f

o r m anc e of

t he co r e f

unc t i o ns of

hi s orherj o b, ” buthel d t hatt he pl ai n t i f f ’ s “ defi ci e n ci es pal e besi de h i s c on si st en t l y good sal es perf orm an ce, i nexpl i c abl y unacc ount ed f or i n hi s supervi so r ’ s negat i ve eval uat i ons ” and t hat

“ [ a] fac t f

i nde rc o ul d f

i nd i ti m pl aus ibl e t hat[ t he em pl o ye r ] w o ul d ha ve f i r e d [t he pl ai n t i f f ] f or s u ch defi ci en ci es w h en he w as success f u li n the sol e area i den t i f i ed b y [the em p l oy er’ s] ow n pe rform a n ce ince n tive pr og ra m — sa l es.” I d. at332. F in a ll y, T aylorci t es Krieg erv. G o ldB o n dB u ild ingPro d u cts , 863 F. 2d 1091 ( 2d C i r . 1988) , i n w hi c h t he S ec ond C i r c ui tu phel d the t r i alcour t ’ s fac t ual f i n di n g t h at an em pl oyer’ s legit i m ate, non - di scr i m i n ator y reasons f or t e r m i nat i ng a fe m al e s al e s pe r s o n— he rpo o rp ap e r w o r k, he rfai l ur e t o s e l lt he fullran ge of th e com p a n y’ s p rod u cts, an d h er u se o f h er h om e telep h on e to
c o nt ac tc us t o m e r s — w e r e pr e t e xt ual , on t he gr o unds t hatt he sa l e s pe r s o n ha d a
recor d of

ei t h er exceedi n g h er s al es quotas or at l east exceedi n g t h e sal es f i gu res posted by m an y of h er m al e coun t erparts ; evi den ce t h at t h e com pa n y preferred
no tt o ha ve fe m al e s al e s pe o pl e; a n d ev i de nc e t hatt he f l aws at t r ibut e d t o t he f i red fem al e sal esperson w ere s h ared by m an y of her m al e co w o rk e rs , n on e of
w h o m w e r e fir e d fo rs im ila rre a s o n s . I d. at1098–9 9. N one of

t he c as es f

r om ours i st erc i r c ui t s c i t ed byTayl orh old t hat
e vi de nc e o f

a s al e s pe r s o n’ s s i gni f i c ants al e s v o l um e b y i t s e l f i s a l w ay s s uf

f i c i e nt to ra is e a fa c t is s u e a s to w h e th e rth e s a le s p e r s o n p e r fo r m e d th e ir jo b e ffe c tiv e ly
o rw h e th e ra n a s s e r te d p e r fo r m a n ce-ba sed rea son f or th eir f

ir in gw a s p r e te x tu a l. I n Fi sher , t he s al e s pe r son’ s evi den ce c on cerni n g h i s s al es prof i ci e nc y— t e s t i m o nyNo. 08-20216

15 by a cu st om er and m an ager, sup pl em en t ed by past perf orm an ce evaluati on s— di rectlyre b u tte d th e sp e cific a ll e g e d p erf orm an ce def

i ci en ci es c i t ed b y t h e em pl oyer, i n cl u di n g a l ack of produ ctkn ow l edg e, poor com m u n i cat i on w i t h cus t om er s, and unprof es si onalc onductduri ng s al es c al l s. 225 F. 3d at 9 2 0

– 2 1
. T h e cu s to m e rte s tifie d th a t t h e s a le s p e r s o n h a d a lw a y s p r e s e n te d h is
c o m pa ny’ s pr o duc t s i n a w ayt hatde m o ns t r at e d t he b ene f i to f t he i rus e t o t he
c us t o m e r ; t he s al e s pe r s o n’ s pa s tpe r f o r m anc e e va l uat i o ns g av e hi m hi gh m ar ks fo rh is p r o d u c tk n o w le d g e ; a n d th e m a n a g e rt e s t if ie d th a tth e s a le s p e r s o n ’s abil i t y t o “ t al k cou n t ry, ” or rel ate t o cust om ers w h o di d n otha ve a h i gh l evelof educ at i on, and h i s a b i l i t y t o b ui l d r appor tw i t h cl i ent s by t al ki ng abouts oc i al
m a tt e r s ra th e rth a n s tr ic tly b u s in e s s is s u e s , a c tu a llye n h a n c e d h is a b ility to s e ll p r o d u c ts . B y c o n tr a s t, T a y lo r ’ s e v id e n c e co n c e r n in gh is s a le s p r o fic ie n c y— h is
sa l es num ber s— do notr ebutt he s pec i f i c per f or m ance def

i c i en ci es c i t ed by P eerl ess, i n cl u di n g fai l i n g t o cal l on cust om ers, fai l i n g t o gen erat e new bu si n ess, fai l i n gt o u s e t h e c u s t o m e rman a g e m e n td a t a b a s e , a n d c o m m u n i c a t i ng e f fe c t i ve l y. Rat he r , Tay l o r as s e r t s t hat pr e vi o us l y r e c o r de d s al e s vo l um e i s t he sol e l egi t i m ate m easu re of a sal esperson’ s e ffec tiveness, an d that hi s al l eged d e fic ie n c ie s in o th e ra r e a s a r e s e c o n d a r ym e a s u r e s o f p e r fo r m a n c e th a t s h o u ld be dis coun t ed i n t h e face of sal es- vol u m e evi den ce. W i t h r e ga r d t o t he s t at e m e nti n Fi shert hat“ t he s e l l i ng o f pr o duc ti s t he pri m ary responsi bi l i t y of a sa l esperson an d thu s t h at s al es vol u m e i s g en er a lly t h e pr i nc i

pali n d i ca tor of a sa l esp erso n ’ s p erform a n ce,” i d. a t 9 2 0 (e m p h a s is ad ded ) , t h e qu al i f

i ers “ gen eral l y ” a n d “p ri n ci pa l” m ak e cl ear t h at t h e Fi sher
c o u r td id n o tm e a n to e m b r a c e a n a b s o lu t e r u le th a te v id e n c e o f a s a le s p e r s o n ’s sign i fi ca n t sales vo l u m e b y it self i s alw a ys su ff

i ci en t t o ra i se a fa ct issu e a s to
w h e th e rth e s a le s p e r s o n p e r fo r m e d h is jo b e ffe c tiv e ly
. T h a t s ta te m e n t c le a r ly contem pl ates t h at there a re other rel evan ti n di cat ors t h at m ay p rovi de a bett er orm or e c om pl et e pi c t ure of a sa l es per so n’ s per f or m ance . I n t hi s c as e, al t houghNo. 08-20216

Taylor does presentevidence to di spute some of th e al le ge d deficiencies in his 4 performance, includingevidence thath e o pene d two ne w account s after his first-qu arter performance review in 200 3 and that h e secured a verbal c ommitment ona thir d account on th e dayb ef

ore h e wa s t er min ate d. 16 T aylorha d good sal es nu m bers, hi s docum e n te d fai l u re t o cal lon custom ers, ge ne r at e ne w b us i ne s s , us e t he c us t om er m ana ge m e ntda t ab as e , a nd
c o m m u n ic a te e ffe c tiv e ly c o u ld r e a s o n a b ly h a v e b e e n v ie w e d a s je o p a r d iz in gh is
a b il it yt o m a in t a in o ri n c r e a s e s a le s i n t h e f u t u r e a n d a s u n d e r m in in gP e e r le s s ’s abil i t y t o devel op an d execu t e st rat egi es d esi gn ed t o m ai n t ai n or i n crease sal es i n T aylor ’ s di st ri ct an d en sure com pl i an ce w i t h t h ose s t rat egi es. I n deed , one of t h e l argestcust om ers i n T aylor ’ s t erri t ory t ol d M cD on al d that Ta yl or had nev er m etw i t h t hatc ust om eri n per so n, and anoth er c ust om ert ol d M c D onal d t hat T aylorha d n otm etw i t h t h at c u st om er s i n ce Feb rua ry 2002
. Ta yl or’ s s al es vol um e c l ear l y pr es ent s an i nco m pl et e pi c t ure of hi s per f

or m ance and i s notby i t s e l f s uf f i c i e ntt o r ai s e a fac ti s s ue a s t o w he t he r he w as a c t ual l y e f fe c t i ve i n t he f i e l d. B rew eri s di s t i ngu i s hab l e o n s i m i l arg r o unds
. I n B rew er , as i n Fi sher , t he
s al e s pe r s o n pr e s e nt e d t e s t i m o ny di r e c t l y r e but t i ng t he e xt e nt and de gr e e o f t he speci f i c al l eged perf

orm an ce defi ci en ci es ci t ed by t h e em pl oyer, i n cl u di n g p o or fol l ow -up on cu stom er re q u ests, p oo r com m u n ic a tio n w i th cl i en ts an d w i th
m an agem en t , t oo l i t t l e t i m e spen ti n hi s t erri t ory, an d l ate and am bi gu ou s s al es r e po r t s . 7 2 F. 3da t3 31
. As di s c us s e d a bo ve , Ta yl o rdo e s no ta t t e m ptt o r e but
m ostof t h e al l eged speci f

i c def i ci en ci es i n h i s p erf

orm an ce. T h e pri m ary t h rust

4 of hi s ar gum enti s t hat h i s sa l es num ber s sho w t hathe w as an ef fec t i ve s al e s pe r s o n i n spi t e of t he s pe c i f

i c de f i c i e nc i e s c i t e d b y Pee r l e s s. As f o rt he B rew ercou rt ’ s observati on tha t“t h e v ol u m e of sal es m ay al w ays be t h e pri m ary
m ea su re of a sa l esp erso n ’ s p erform a n ce,” i d. at 331–32 ( em phasi s added) , t hat
s t at e m e nt i s c o uc he d i n t he s am e q ual i f i e d l ang uag e a s t he s t at e m e nti n Fi sher t h at “ sal es vol u m e i s g en er a lly t h e pr i nc i pali n d i c a t o ro f a s a le s p e r s o n ’sNo. 08-20216

Inar guing

inth e altern ative th at racewas amotivating factor in his dismissal, Taylor 5 ass ert s thathe wastreat ed diff ere ntly than hiswhit e count erp art s w ith re sp ectt opay, evaluations , and j ob d e m a n d s ; thatPeerles s di d not f ollo w th e fourste psof pro gres sive disciplinecontained outlined inthe employee han dbook; and that Peerl ess failed to hire and maintaina raci ally diverse workforce. T aylor’ s briefs are incon sistentas to wh ether th e evidence thath e provides to support theseallegatio ns i s al so b ein g offeredto show pretext. Some sectio ns of hi s briefs specificallystat e th at it is being offeredonlyto show th at racewas a motivatin g fact or, and the evid enceis not disc uss ed in the “p ret ext”sect ion of his brie fing, buth e states severalti mes inpassingth at this evidence c an also be used to show pret ext. Regardl ess, as di scussed below, thi s evidence i s deficient fornumerous reason s an d doe s not provide support for either pro position. 17 p erform a n ce,” 22 5 F
. 3 d at 92 0

– 2 1 ( em p h a s is a d d ed ). W e d o n ot d i sa gr ee w i th t h e B rew erc our t ’ s st at em entt hat“ se gr egat [ i ng] j ob per f or m ance i nt o t he neat
ca t e g o rie s o f sa les a n d or g a n iza tion a l sk il ls d e fies th e re a li tyof th e ro le o f a
sa l es per so n i n a c om pany, ” 72 F. 3d at332 ( em phasi s added) , butbe l i eve t hat th e p erfor m a n c e de fi ci en ci es cit ed by P ee rl ess directl y co n cern ed h i s ab i l i ty to
m ai nt ai n o ri nc r e as e s al e s i n t he f ut ur e a nd Pe e r l e s s ’ s a bi l i t y t o de ve l o p a nd
e xe c ut e s t r at e gi e s de s i gne d t o m ai nt ai n o ri nc r e as e s al e s i n Tay l o r ’ s di s t r i c ta nd
en sure com pl i an ce w i t h t h ose s t rat egi es. F in a lly , Kri egeri s di st ingu i sha bl e on the groun ds t h at t h e sal esperson sub m i t t ed rel evan tevi den ce of di scr i m i n ati on i n add i t i on to h e r sal es f i gu res, in c lu d in ge v id e n c e th a t t h e co m p a n yp r e fe r r e d n o t t o h a v e fe m a le s a le s p e o p le and t hatt he f

l aw s at t r ibu ted t o t he f i r ed f em al e s al es per so n w er e s hare d by
m any of herm al e c ow or ker s, none o f w hom w er e f

i r ed f ors i m i l arreas ons . 863 F
. 2d at 109 8

– 9 9 . H ere, T aylorrel i es s ol el y on hi s s al es f i gu res t o est abli sh p retex t. 5 T aylor h as fai l ed t o rai se a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i al fact a s to w h e t h er P eerl ess’ s sta te d r eason f or hi s t erm i n ati on i s fal se and a pret ext f or di scr i m i n ati on B . R ace as a M ot i vat i ng F act or Tayl orar gues t hatev en if the st at ed r eas on f

orTayl or ’ s di sm i ss alw as t rue, P eerl ess’ s un favo r ab l e t r e at m e nto f Tay l or w i t h res pect t o pay , eval u ati on s,No. 08-20216

18 a n d j ob de m a n d s relati ve to w h i te em p lo y e e s ; fa i l u re to com p l y w i th i ts p r o g r e s s iv e d is c ip lin a r y p o lic y ; a n d fa ilu r e to h ir e a n d m a in ta in a m o r e ra c ia lly d iv e r s e w o r k fo r c e , d e m o n s tr a te t h a t r a c e w a s a ls o a m o tiv a tin gfa c to rin h is d i sm i ssa l
. Peer l es s as se r t s t hat T a ylor w a s trea ted u n fav ora b l y re l a tive to w h i te
em pl oye es s ol el y be c ause of Tayl or ’ s uni que pe rfor m ance pr obl em s and t hat T aylorha s fai l ed to i den t i f y an y w h i t e em pl oyees w h o ha d the sam e perf orm an ce p rob l em s a s T a ylor y et w ere treate d dif feren tl y; t h a t P ee rl ess com p l i ed w i th i ts p r o g r e s s iv e d is c ip li n a r yp o li c y ; a n d t h a tT a y lo r ’s e v id e n c e c o n c e r n in gP e e r le s s ’s h i ri n g practi ces a re i n accurate and i n concl u sive. I n assess i n g w h et h er a pr o t e c t e d c har ac t e r i s t i c w as “ a m o t i va t i ng fac t o r , ” a co ur tm us tc o ns i de rt he
e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d b y t h e p la in tiff a s a w h o le
. S ee Mach i n chic k v. P B Pow er, Inc. , 3 9 8 F .3d 3 4 5 , 3 5 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). T a y lo rh a s s u b m itt e d e v id e n c e th a t s o m e C a u c a s ia n s a le s p e o p le occasi on al l y fai l ed to t u rn i n i t i n erari e s in a dv an ce, m ak e t w el ve face- t o- face s al e s c al l s pe r w eek, a nd h adpr o bl e m s us i ng t he c us t o m e rm ana ge m e nt dat abas e, bu tw er e notf i r ed f orany o f

t hes e fai l i ngs. Tayl oral so poi nt s outt hat he r e c e i ve d a b e l o w - av e r ag e pa y i nc r e as e , t hathe w as t he o nl y s al e s pe r s o n who
w a s d i rectly rev i ew ed by T a ylor, a n d th a t h e w a s th e on l y e m p l oy ee ord ere d to i m m edi atel y ad dress t h e l i stof speci f i c exp ect ati on s l ai d out i n hi s perf orm an ce revi ew . To establ i sh di scr i m i n ator y m ot i ve t h rough t h e di f ferent t reat m en tof
a n oth er e m p l oy ee , tha t em p l oy ee ’ s ci rcu m stan ces, i n cl u d i n g h i s m i scon d u ct,
m u st h a ve be en “ne a rl y ide n ti ca l
. ” S ee Perez v. T ex. D ep’ t of C ri m i n al Ju st i ce , 3 9 5 F .3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); S an d st adv. CB R i cha rd E l l i s, I n c. , 309 F. 3d 893, 901 ( 5t h C i r . 2002)

. Tayl orhas fai l ed t o s ubm i tany e vi denc e s how i ng t hat
a n y o th er ind i vid u a lsalesp erso n w a s en ga ge d i n n ea r ly id e n ti ca lcon d u ct,
s pe c i f i c al l y t hatt he y w e r e de f i c i e nti n a l lo re ve n a s i gni f i c antnum be ro f

t he
ar eas i n w hi c h he w as def i c i ent or t hatot hers al es per so ns’def i c i enc i es w er e a s s e ve r e . In l i gh t of t he c o m pl e t e l ac k o f e vi de nc e c o nc e r ni ng t he na t ur e a ndNo. 08-20216

Taylor obj ects to applying th e “nearly identical” standard in this case, arguin g that it 6 is o nlyu sed in this circuit when evidence of oth er e mployees’t r ea t m en tis introduce d to de mo n stratep retext, an d notwhenit isintroduce d toshowth at ap rote ct edtraitwa s a motivatin g factor . T aylor does not cite any cases from this circuit in support of this argu ment, an d th e ration alef

orth e “n earlyi de ntical”st an dardi s e qu ally app licab leinb othc ontexts : comparingth e treatment of the plaintiff with the treatment of otheremployees do es not permit a reaso nab le inferenc e of discrimin atio n if differences in their tre atment could ju st as ea silyb e a scrib edto their diff erent circu mst ance s asto di scri min ation . See Perez v. T ex. Dep’t of Criminal J

ust ice , 3 9 5 F
. 3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 3 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4)

. T ayl o r al s o ar gu e s th at even in the cont ext of the pretext analysis, Supre me C ourtpre cedent man dates a “comparable seriou sness” standar d ratherth ana“ nearlyide ntic al” standard. This court has consi dered th e pr ec edentscit ed b yT aylor an d h el d th at th e latt eri s th e app ro priatest an dard
. Seei d
. at 212–13
. 19 extent of

t h e def

i ci en tcondu cteng ag e d in by T aylor ’ s w h i t e cow orkers,
com p a ri n g the disci p l i n a rym ea su res P ee rl ess took w i th resp ect to T a ylor to t h ose i tt ook w i t h res pect t o hi s c ow orkers provi des n o rel evan ti n f orm ati on r e g a r d in gw h e th e rra c e p la y e d a ro le in T a y lo r ’ s te r m in a tio n . SeeC heat ham v. A l lst ateI

n s. Co. , 465 F. 3d 578, 583 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (f i ndi ng t hatev i denc e t hat ot herem pl oye es w er e t r eat ed di f fer ent l y t han t hos e i n t he pr ot ec t ed c l as s w as no tpr o ba t i ve o n t he i s s ue o f pr e t e xto rw he t he rt he e m pl o ye e s ’pr o t e c t e d s t at us w as a m ot i vati n g fact or i n t h ei r t erm i n ati on b ecau se the ot h er em pl oyees w ere n o ts i mi l a r l ys i t u a t e d d u e t o t h e fa c tt h a tt h e yd i d n o te n g a g e i n t h e s a me b e h a v io r); A u d i bertv. L ow e’ s Hom e Cente rs, I

n c. , 152 F
. A pp ’ x 399 , 403 ( 5th C i r. 2005) ( “ To dem on st r at e t hatt hes e m al e e m pl oye es w er e g i ven pr ef er ent i al trea tm en t i n s i t u a t i o n s s i mi la rt o h e ro wn , A u di bertneed ed to provi de evi den ce t hatt he y e nga ge d i n m i s c o nduc tne ar l y i de n t i c a lt o t he m i s c o nduc tf o rw hi c h s he
w a s a ll e g e d ly d isch a rg e d .”)

. 6 T ayloral so c on t en d s th a t P eerl ess fai l ed to com pl y w i t h i t s w ri t t en progressive di sci pl i n ary pol i cy, a n d t h at thi s fai l u re i s evidence t h at race w as a m o t i va t i ng fac t o ri n hi s t e r m i nat i o n. The f o urs t e ps o f

pr o gr e s s i ve di sci pl i ne o ut l i ne d i n t he po l i c y ar e : ( 1) f i r s tw ar ni ng; ( 2) s e c o nd war ni ng; ( 3) pr obati on; and( 4) t e r m i nat i o n o f e m pl o ym e nt
. The po l i c y s p e c i f i c al l y no t e s t hatt he s e s t e psNo. 08-20216

20 ar e no tm and at o r y, s t at i ng t hat“ s pe c i f i c c o r r e c t i ve a c t i o n wi l ldepend o n t he severi t y a n d c o n d i t i on s of t h e probl em , ” a m an ager “ m ay em pl oy som e, al lor no ne ” o f

t he o ut l i ne d s t e ps , a nd t hat“ [ t ] h e u se an d dur at i o n o f e ac h s t e p, a nd ty p e o f d is c ip lin a r ya c tio n ta k e n , m a yv a r yd e p e n d in go n th e s itu a tio n a n d w ill be determ i n ed w i t h i n t h e sol e di scr et i on of P eerl ess Indu st ri es, Inc. ” T h e pol i cy s t at e s t hat“ [ e ] ac h s t e p, i f us e d, m ayi nc l ude a revi ew of th e de t ai l s o f t he probl em , t h e chan ges need ed, an d t h e t i m e f ram e w i t h i n w h i ch the chan ges are t o occ u r, ” a n d that di sci pl i n ary act i on “ m ay als o i n cl u de su spen si on w i t h or w i t houtpay. ” T ayl orass er t s t hatP ee r l es s fai l ed t o c om pl y w i t h i t s pro gr es sive di sc i pl i nary p oli cy b y bypas si ng t he f i r stt hre e s t eps out l i ned i n t he pol i c y. T aylornotes t h at C on n ol l y conceded t h at Ta yl or w as not g ive n a w ri t t en w arn i n g of

t erm i n ati on , p la ced on p robati on , or susp en ded , an d that Peerl ess

“ di d n otg o throu gh the f orm alsteps tha ta re i den t i f i ed” i n t h e pol i cy. Peerl ess di d no tv i o l at e t he w r i t t e n di s c i pl i nar y po l i c y by de c l i ni ng t o f o l l o w t he f

o urs t e ps of pr ogr es sive di sc i pl i ne l i st ed i n t he pol i c y; t he pol i c y c l ear l y s t at es t hat f o l l o w i ng t he s t eps i s n o tm and at o r y andt hatm ana ge r s m ai nt ai n s i gni f i c ant d is c r e tio n in d e te r m in in gh o w to d is c ip lin e e m p lo y e e s . T aylorargu es t h at an em pl oyer’ s fai l u re t o f ol l ow a n o n m a n da t ory di sci pl i n ary pol i cy m ay sti l ldem on st rat e t h at a prot ect ed ch aract eri st i c w as a m ot i vati n g fact or i n an ad verse em pl oym en tdeci si on . Ta yl or c i t es Mach i n chic k
v. P B Pow er, I

n c. , 398 F. 3d 345 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) , i n w hi c h t hi s c our ts t at ed t hat

“ [ a] l t ho ugh [ t he e m pl o ye r ] c o r r e c t l y no t e s t hat i t s po l i c y i s no t m and at o r y, a nd t hat[ t he pl ai nt i f

f ] w as a n a t
- w i l lem pl o ye e , t he s e fac t s do no te l i m i nat e t he in fer e n ce of

pret ext rai sed by i t s fai l u re t o f ol l ow an i n t erna lcom pa n y pol i cy sp ecif i ca l l y sta ti n g th a t i t sh ou l d be ‘ fol l ow ed in m ost ci rcu m stan ces.’” I d. at355
n. 29
. U nl i ke t he po l i c y i n Mach i n chic k , t he pol i c y i n t hi s c as e di d nots t at e t hat i tshou l d be “f

ol l ow ed i n m ostcirc u m st an ces. ” I n deed , P eerl ess’ s pol i cy t ak es gr eatpai ns t o e m phasi ze t hatt he di sc i pl i nary m eas ure s use d i n a par t i c ul arNo. 08-20216

21 case w i l lbe highl y dep en da n ton t h e speci f i c c i rcum st an ces an d that m an agers

“ m ay e m pl oy so m e, al l or none” of t he st eps . I n t he abs enc e of any evi denc e t hat P eerl ess gen eral l y f

ol l ow ed the f

ou r s t eps ou t l i n ed i n it s d i sci pl i n ary pol i cy, or t h at t h e pol i cy w as ap pl i ed di f ferentl y t o si m i l arl y si t u ated em pl oyees, t h e fact t hatPe e r l e s s di d no tf o l l o w t he f

o urs t e ps does n ot pr o vi de a ny r e l e va nt i nf o r m at i o n r e ga r di ng w he t he rr ac e pl ay e d a r o l e i n Tay l o r ’ s t e r m i nat i o n. F i n al l y, T aylorargu es t h at Peerl ess’ s fai l u re t o hi re and m ai n t ai n a m ore r a c ia llyd iv e r s e w o r k fo r c e d e m o n s tr a te s th a t r a c e w a s a m o tiv a tin gfa c to rin h is di sm i ssal
. Ta yl or has sub m i t t ed evi den ce t h at al l ei gh tof t h e sal espeop l e hi red by C on n ol l y w ere w h i t e, an d that C on n ol l y i n t e rv iew e d on e or t w o bl ack
can di da t es f

or s everalof

t h ose posi t i on s. Ta yl or h a s al so s u bm i t t ed evi den ce t h at f ou r bl ack em pl oyees i n t h e cust om e r servi ce depa rt m en tw ere f i red or resi gn ed d u ri n g t h e t en u re of K en Joh n son, C on n ol l y’ s s u perv isor
. Ta yl or as se r t s t hatt her e w as an ov er al ll ac k of r ac i al di ver si t y atPeer l es s: Tayl orw as t he o nl y bl ac k s al e s pe r s o n; o nl y o ne b l ac k e m pl oyee w as i n a m ana ge m e nt posi t i o n (hum an r e s o ur c e s m ana ge r) ; a nd a l lregi on alsal es m an agers an d “up per m an agem en t ” w ere w h i t e. P eerl ess contend s t h at Ta yl or has m i scharacter i zed i t s hi r i ng pr ac t i c es and t he diver si t y o f i t s w or kf

or c e. Peer l es s as se r t s t hat T aylorha s i gn ored t h e f ol l ow i n g rel evan t fact s abou t t h e t reat m en t of em pl oyees in th e cu s to m e rs e r v ic e d e p a r tm e n t: th e r e a r e cu r r e n tly fiv e b la c k e m p lo y e e s in t h e d epa rt m en t ; t w o w h i t e em pl oyees w ere f i red an d f

ou r r esi gn ed; a bl ack
em pl oyee repl aced a n o th e r fire d b la ck em p loy e e ; tw o b la ck em p loy e e s w e re hi red t o r e p l a c e t wo wh i t e e mp l o y e e s wh o we r e f i r e d ; a n d J o h n s o n h i ms e l f h i r e d t wo bl ac k e m p l oye es . Peer l es s al so ar gues t hathum an r es our c e m anageri s an

“ u pp er m a n a g e m e n tposi t i on , ” an d theref ore t h at i tdoes ha ve on e bl ack
em p l oy ee i n “up p er m a n a ge m en t. ” T a ylor’ s s ta tis ti ca lev i d en ce, w h en con sider ed i n con tex t an d alon g w i th t h e ot h er evi den ce i n t h e rec ord, does n otp erm i ta reason able i n ference tha traceNo. 08-20216

22 w as a m o t i va t i ng fac t o r i n Tay l o r ’ s t e r m i nat i o n. Tay l o r has fai l e d t o pr e s e nta ny e vi de nc e c o nc e r ni ng t he num be ro f q ual i f i e d b l ac k j o b ap pl i c ant s f o rs al e s a nd
m an ag e r i alpo s i t i o ns ; a m o r e c o m pr e he ns i ve v i e w o f hi r i ng pr ac t i c e s i n t he
c us t o m e rs e rvi ce depa rt m en treveal s no di scer n ibl e di scr i m i n ator y pa t t ern; an d, as di scussed abov e, T aylorha s fai led t o poi n tt o ot h er c i rcum st an t i alevi den ce th a t c o u ld s u p p o r t a r e a s o n a b le in fe r e n c e th a t r a c e w a s a m o tiv a tin gfa c to rin h i s t e r mi n a t i o n . A l t h o u g h s t a t i s t i c a le v i d e n c e i s n o ts u b j e c t e d t o t h e s a me exacti n g sta n d a rds i n di sparate t reat m en tcases as i ti s i n di sparate i m pa ct cases, see D eloach v. D el cha mps, I n c. , 8 9 7 F .2 d 8 1 5 , 8 2 0 (5 t h C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ), T a y lo r ’s st ati st i calevi d e n ce s i m pl y does seem not s h ed an y l i gh ton the rol e t h at r ace m a yh a v e p la y e d in P e e r le s s ’ s e m p lo y m e n t p r a c tic e s , se e C h ea th a m v. A llsta te Ins. Co. , 465 F
. 3d 578 , 583 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) ( “ T h ese s t ati st i cs are not probative of d iscr im in a to ry in te n t b e ca u se th e ya re d e v o idof co n te x t.”) ; K eelan v. Maj esc o Sof t w ar e , I

n c. , 4 0 7 F. 3d 332, 345–46 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) ( “ K ee l an’ s st at i st i c al evi denc e a nd pro

- I ndi an r em ar ks do notcr eat e a fac ti ss ue on pre t ext
. B ei ng a
m aj ori t y Indian com pa n y di d n otpreven tM aj esc o from al so f i ri n g Indians f

or n o n p e r fo r m a n c e in s a le s .”); EE O Cv. T ex. I n st rum ents , I

n c. , 100 F. 3d 1173, 1185 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 6) ( “ The pr o ba t i ve v al ue o f s t at i s t i c ale vi de nc e ul t i m at e l y de pe nds
on al lt h e surroun di n g fact s, ci rcum st an ces, an d other e v i den ce of d is c r im in a tio n .”). T a y lo r ’ s e v id e n c e d o e s n o t r a i s e a fa c t is s u e a s to w h e th e rh is i n ef fect i ven ess i n t h e f

i eld w a s on l y on e reason f or Peerl ess’ s deci si on t o f i re T aylor , an d that Ta yl or’ s r ace w as a m ot i vati n g fact or i n t h e deci si on . Ta ken tog eth er, T a ylor’ s ev i d en ce th a t he w a s trea ted dif feren tl y th a n h i s w h i te
coun t erparts w i t h res pect t o pay , eval u a t i on s, an d j ob dem an ds; t h at Peerl ess di d no tf

o l l o w t he f

o urst e ps of

pr o gr e s s i ve di s c i pl i ne c o nt ai ne d o ut l i ne d i n t he
e m p lo y e e h a n d b o o k ; a n d th a t P e e r le s s fa ile d to h ir e a n d m a in ta in a ra c ia lly di v erse w orkf

orce, does not perm i ta reasonab l e i n ference t h at di scr i m i n ator yNo. 08-20216

Inli ght of our hol ding th at Taylor ha s fai led to r aise a fact i ssue a s to wheth er r ace 7 was a motivatin g factorinhis termination , we need notaddress th e di strict court’s holding th at P eerl es s wouldhave ma deth e de ci sionto fireT aylor re gardle ss of dis crimin atoryanim u s.
23 a n im u s a ls o p la y e d a ro le in th e d e c is io n . Cf

. Mach i n chic k , 398 F. 3d at353–55 (f i ndi ng t hate vi de nc e t hat an e m pl o ye r s o ugh tt o hi r e y o ung e re m pl o ye e s , m ad e s te r e o ty p i c a l re m a r k s a b o u t t h e p la in tiff b a s e d o n h is a g e , tr e a te d s im ila r ly si t u ated y ou n ger em pl oyees d i f ferentl y, a n d qu est i on ed t h e pl ai n t i f f abou tw h en h e pl an n ed to ret i re, rai sed a facti ssue as t o w h et h er t h e pl ai n tiff ’ s a g e w as a m o tiv a tin gfac to r in h is d ism iss a l). 7 I V . C oncl usi on T aylorha s fai l ed to rai se a genu i n e i ssue o f m a te ria lfactas t o w h et h er P e e r le s s ’ s s ta te d re a s o n fo rh is te r m in a tio n — th a t h e h a d n e g le c te d to co m p ly
w i t h m anagem ent ’ s di r ec t i ves c onc er ni ng how he w as t o per f or m h i s j ob and t hat t h i s w as cau sin g h im to be i n ef fect i ve i n t h e f

i el d— w as fal se and a pret ext f or di sc r i m i nat i on, or as t o w het her Peer l es s’ s st at ed r eas on f or hi s t er m i nat i on w as onl y o ne r eas on f

orPeer l es s’ s dec i si on to f i r e T ayl or , an d thatTayl or ’ s r ac e w as a m ot i vati n g fact or i n t h e deci si on . A cc ordi n gl y, t h e j u dg m en tof t h e di st ri ct
c o u r ti s A F F I RMED.